Email this article to a friend

At the Central Baptist Church in Marshall, Texas, where I was baptized in the faith, we believed in a free church in a free state. I still do.

My spiritual forbears did not take kindly to living under theocrats who embraced religious liberty for themselves but denied it to others. “Forced worship stinks in God’s nostrils,” thundered the dissenter Roger Williams as he was banished from Massachusetts for denying Puritan authority over his conscience. Baptists there were a “pitiful negligible minority” but they were agitators for freedom and therefore denounced as “incendiaries of the commonwealth” for holding to their belief in that great democracy of faith-the priesthood of all believers.

Such revolutionary ideas made the new nation with its Constitution and Bill of Rights “a haven for the cause of conscience.” No longer would “the loathsome combination of church and state”-as Thomas Jefferson described it-be the settled order. The First Amendment neither inculcates religion nor inoculates against it. Americans could be loyal to the Constitution without being hostile to God, or they could pay no heed to God without fear of being mugged by an official God Squad. It has been a remarkable arrangement that guaranteed “soul freedom.”

It is at risk now, and the fourth observance of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 is an appropriate time to think about it.

Four years ago, the poet’s prophetic metaphor became real again and “the great dark birds of history” plunged into our lives.

They came in the name of God. They came bent on murder and martyrdom.

Yes, the Koran speaks of mercy and compassion and calls for ethical living. But such passages are no match for the ferocity of instruction found there for waging war for God’s sake: “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of Evil.”(4:76)

So the holy warriors came-an airborne death cult, their sights on God’s enemies: regular folks, starting the day’s routine one minute and in the next, engulfed by a horrendous cataclysm.

But it is never only the number of dead by which terrorists measure their work. It is also the number of the living-the survivors-taken hostage to fear. The writer Terry Tempest Williams has said “the human heart is the first home of democracy.” Fill that heart with fear and people will give up the risks of democracy for the assurances of security; fill that heart with fear and you can shake the house to its foundations.

Having lost faith in all else, zealots have nothing left but a holy cause to please a warrior God. They win if we become holy warriors, too; if we kill the innocent as they do; strike first at those who had not struck us; allow our leaders to use the fear of terrorism to make us afraid of the truth; cease to think and reason together, allowing others to tell what’s in God’s mind. Yes, we are vulnerable to terrorists, but only a shaken faith in ourselves can do us in.

————————

Muslims have no monopoly on holy violence. As Jack Nelson-Pallmayer points out, God’s violence in the sacred texts of both faiths reflects a deep and troubling pathology “so pervasive, vindictive, and destructive” that it contradicts and subverts the collective weight of other passages that exhort ethical behavior or testify to a loving God.

We know we can go through the Bible and construct a God more pleasing to the better angels of our nature. We also know that the “violence-of-God” tradition remains embedded deep in the DNA of monotheistic faith. Inside that logic you cannot read part of the Bible allegorically and the rest of it literally; if you believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, his crucifixion and resurrection, and the depiction of the Great Judgment at the end times you must also believe that God is sadistic, brutal, vengeful, callow, cruel and savage-that God slaughters.

Let’s go back to 9/11 four years ago. The ruins were still smoldering when the reverends Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell went on television to proclaim that the terrorist attacks were God’s punishment of a corrupted America. They said the government had adopted the agenda “of the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians” not to mention the ACLU and People for the American Way (The God of the Bible apparently holds liberals in the same low esteem as Hittites and Gergushites and Jebusites and all the other pagans of holy writ.) Critics said such comments were deranged. But millions of Christian fundamentalists and conservatives didn’t think so. They thought Robertson and Falwell were being perfectly consistent with the logic of the Bible as they read it: God withdraws favor from sinful nations-the terrorists were meant to be God’s wake-up call: better get right with God. Not many people at the time seemed to notice that Osama bin Laden had also been reading his sacred book closely and literally, and had called on Muslims to resist what he described as a “fierce Judeo-Christian campaign” against Islam, praying to Allah for guidance “to exalt the people who obey Him and humiliate those who disobey Him.”

Suddenly we were immersed in the pathology of a “holy war” as defined by fundamentalists on both sides. You could see this pathology play out in General William Boykin. As a member of the U.S. military, Boykin had taken up with a small group called the Faith Force Multiplier whose members apply military principles to evangelism with a manifesto summoning warriors “to the spiritual warfare for souls.” In uniform, Boykin attended evangelical revivals preaching that America was in a holy war as “a Christian nation” battling Satan and that America’s Muslim adversaries will be defeated “only if we come against them in the name of Jesus.” For such an hour, America surely needed a godly leader. So General Boykin explained how it was that the candidate who had lost the election in 2000 nonetheless wound up in the White House. President Bush, he said, “was not elected by a majority of the voters-he was appointed by God.” Not surprising, instead of being reprimanded for evangelizing while in uniform, General Boykin is now the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. (Just as it isn’t surprising that despite his public call for the assassination of a foreign head of state, Pat Robertson’s Operation Blessing was one of the first groups to receive taxpayer funds from the President’s Faith-Based Initiative for “relief work” on the Gulf Coast.)

We can’t wiggle out of this. We’re talking about a powerful religious constituency that claims the right to tell us what’s on God’s mind and to decide the laws of the land according to their interpretation of biblical revelation and to enforce those laws on the nation as a whole. For the Bible is not just the foundational text of their faith; it has become the foundational text for a political movement.

————————

The radical religious right has succeeded in taking over one of America’s great political parties-the country is not yet a theocracy but the Republican Party is-and they are driving American politics, using God as a battering ram on almost every issue: crime and punishment, foreign policy, health care, taxation, energy, regulation, social services and so on.

They have brought intensity, organization, and anger to the public square. They use the language of faith to demonize political opponents, mislead and misinform voters, censor writers and artists, ostracize dissenters, and marginalize the poor. These are the foot soldiers in a political holy war financed by wealthy economic interests and guided by savvy partisan operatives who know that couching political ambition in religious rhetoric can ignite the passion of followers.

In recent weeks a movement called the Ohio Restoration Project has been launched to identify and train thousands of “Patriot Pastors” to get out the conservative religious vote next year. According to press reports, the leader of the movement-the senior pastor of a large church in suburban Columbus -casts the 2006 elections as an apocalyptic clash between “the forces of righteousness and the hordes of hell.” The fear and loathing in his message is palpable: He denounces public schools that won’t teach creationism, require teachers to read the Bible in class or allow children to pray. He rails against the “secular jihadists” who have “hijacked” America and prevent school kids from learning that Hitler was “an avid evolutionist.” He blasts the “pagan left” for trying to redefine marriage. He declares that “homosexual rights” will bring “a flood of demonic oppression.” On his church Web site you read, “Reclaiming the teaching of our Christian heritage among America’s youth is paramount to a sense of national destiny that God has invested into this nation.”

The corporate, political and religious right have converged, led by a president who, in his own disdain for science, reason and knowledge, is the most powerful fundamentalist in American history. And radicals on the Christian right are now the dominant force in America’s governing party. They control much of the U.S. government and are on the verge of having it all. Without them the government would not be in the hands of people who don’t believe in government. They are culpable in upholding a system of class and race in which, as we saw last week, the rich escape and the poor are left behind. And they are on a crusade against government “of, by, and for the people” in favor of one based on Biblical authority. So the Grand Old Party-the GOP-has become God’s Own Party, its ranks made up of God’s Own People “marching as to war.”

————————

It has to be said that their success has come in no small part because of our acquiescence and timidity. Our democratic values are imperiled because too many people of reason are willing to appease irrational people just because they are pious. Republican moderates tried appeasement and survive today only in gulags set aside for them by the Karl Roves, Bill Frists and Tom DeLays. Democrats are divided and paralyzed, afraid that if they take on the organized radical right they will lose what little power they have.

As I look back on the conflicts and clamor of our boisterous past, one lesson about democracy stands above all others: Bullies-political bullies, economic bullies and religious bullies-cannot be appeased; they have to be opposed with a stubbornness to match their own. This is never easy; these guys don’t fight fair; “Robert’s Rules of Order” is not one of their holy texts. But freedom on any front-and especially freedom of conscience-never comes to those who rock and wait, hoping someone else will do the heavy lifting.

Christian realism requires us to see the world as it is, without illusions, and then take it on. Christian realism also requires love. But not a sentimental, dreamy love. Reinhold Niebuhr, who taught at Union Theological Seminary and wrestled constantly with applying Christian ethics to political life, put it this way: “When we talk about love we have to become mature or we will become sentimental. Basically love means … being responsible, responsibility to our family, toward our civilization, and now by the pressures of history, toward the universe of humankind.”

Christian realists aren’t afraid to love. But just as the Irishman who came upon a brawl in the street and asked, “Is this a private fight or can anyone join in?” we have to take that love where the action is. Or the world will remain a theatre of war between fundamentalists.

Bill Moyers is a broadcast journalist and former host the PBS program NOW With Bill Moyers. He also serves as president of the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy. This article was adapted from a recent address at Union Theological Seminary in New York, where Judith and Bill Moyers received the seminary’s highest award, the Union Medal, for their contributions to faith and reason in America.

... and all the people said ...
Amen Posted by David in Canada on 2005-11-25 20:38:00

What rabbit said
Amen BrotherPosted by Chemical Enhanced on 2005-11-19 18:13:53

The Squad has no time for God, they are busy killing the infidels, again.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-18 23:53:03

pretty flowers
Is this thread dying like so many flowers? Going to seed?
Digression to the nth degree? Anyone else still reading here? Are we talking to the walls and our terminals too? Only on the God Squad thread. We come here to say our prayers now maybe.
Are you there, God ....... It's me, David.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-11-17 22:01:40

Thank you Rabbit but I am far from perfect. Still blossoming. I am a pretty flower.
(said like "I am a pretty pony")
Some humorous humility :)Posted by David in Canada on 2005-11-17 20:20:16

ODDLY enough it is the animal that has the least beneficial role to play within the ecosytem. The only creature which by dissapearing would not cause any negative impact on any species.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-16 17:10:08

Curious Dave....................................You are a Perfect Fruit sometimes.
Little poke and cheeky Rabbit runs under the coffee table................................................^^.............................................
Rabbit looked at Oolongs page last night and whilst looking at funny pictures without warning came the last few of his final day and up to the funeral. Rabbit had tears in his eyes, and went out and found our Sebastian (Little Hopper) and sat with him awhile.
Sebastian is also with Rabbit ar work today. I tried some head balancing with a pen and then a banana, it sems that he too can see the point of Head Performance. It must be a Rabbit thing. They do have funny wedge shaped heads and an odd sense of fun. It is hard to always know if a Rabbit is enjoying something, but a rule of thumb is, if it continues doing it, then its enjoying it.
I do notice too that he pays quite close attention to the driving of the car. Especially when starting the car and putting it into gear he watches closely and even has begun to anticipate the clutch and gear stick. I'm thinking about making a small electric vehicle with a left and right accelerator peddle which will give forward accelation and turning from two controls, and seeing if he can learn to drive it. He is only 2 so has a whole career ahead of him as a great Rabbit. Oolong has inspired Rabbit. Sebastian has brought so much wisdom and love from his tiny corner of the universe, and has affected us all in a nice way. He too should have his exploits featured. It is all for the betterment of Rabbits worldwide. Here in Oz Rabbits are treated with uncommonly atrocious visciousness. No weapon is considered too evil, they were first enslaved, let free in Oz to fend for themselves and they built a huge Nation on their own, without incurring any ill will among the natives animal or human, they were welcomed as companions and food, as all creatures are in nature.
The white man then began to exterminate Rabbits, shootings and poisonings and now twice Biological Warfare of the most horrible kind.
Rabbits deserve better.
But they are content to wait their turn and lend their small shoulders to the wheels of progress, revolution or whatever it takes to give the planet a future. Rabbits are prepared to become extinct if that is what it takes to save the planet.
Most animals have the same attitude. Rabbit knows only one creature which is so short sighted and selfish and stupid it would never accept extinction before the planet.......................Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-16 17:00:57

... chicken and egg ??Posted by David in Canada on 2005-11-16 15:13:16

David Pronunciamiento.................................
I want to love others and to be loved by others.
I want to be loved by others and to love others.
Perfect blossoms.
I love others and am loved by others.
I am loved by others and love others.
Perfect fruits.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-11-16 15:11:15

Luminous Beauty ... loved the guns and dope link. Very funny.
Liz ... I love Dr. Seuss too. Childhood favorites. I used to recite from them when I was little and my parents wanted to show off my early reading ability.
I am full of love today ... please do not get me started on Microsoft. hehehePosted by David in Canada on 2005-11-16 10:57:29

Liz:
You have brought to my attention another reason why Bill Gates should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. I can't get that video to work on Mozilla. Now I have to open IE. Getting creakier and creakier on Macs.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-11-16 07:59:49

Ah! I didn't know "Nat the Bat" was a Dr Seuss character!
I love Dr Seuss!!Posted by Liz on 2005-11-16 06:09:43

"Has Liz seen the interesting paasenger list from the Flight 77?" No - haven't got a good link - but I do know from memory that all the planes were about half-full... and that many of the people were quite important... ie were "government" people who could be resettled under new names and passports, you know??
" Very high percntage of people who would have had to have known about a lot of what was done to pull off the big day. Surprising number of people who researchers would like to talk to are on that list, if rabbit recalls correctly. " Yeah - telling me!!
"Trying to locate the xact link you referred to, could you re-post it please." Lost link - glad you found it again!Posted by Liz on 2005-11-16 06:08:19

Speaking of fringe....
Here in Cali we have among many anarchist groups, the
Erisian Faction
Here is one of their position papers:

Little Tony was sitting on a park bench munching
on one candy bar after another.
After the 6th candy bar, a man on the bench across from him said,
"Son, you know eating all that candy isn't good for you.
It will give you acne, rot your teeth, and make you fat."
Little Tony replied, "My grandfather lived to be 107 years old."
The man asked, "Did your grandfather eat 6 candy bars at a time?"
Little Tony answered, "No, he minded his own fucking business."

I used to LOVE Jim Marrs' UFO stuff, by the way, ljwhit. (And his name!)
I have/had no IDEA what his politics actually are - but I always found his stuff coolly and reasonably, yet rigorously, reasoned... and informative!!
Good stuff it was!! Loved his "Alien Agenda"!Posted by Liz on 2005-11-16 05:48:20

Might call it The Last Party......................^^.................Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-15 19:12:22

Rabbit might start a new party one of these days.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-15 19:08:51

Greens are the third party in Oz politics, since Democrats imploded and dropped off the charts.
Actually the Libs are a coalition with the National Country Party and could not get by without that usually.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-15 19:07:35

I like good boots too.
In the near future we will be having a federal election here in Canada. Currently we have a minority government and a wee bit o' scandal as well.
Going Green again this time too. They are gaining popularity and may even get a seat this time!
The Rhino Party was a national treasure to be sure.
Natural Law Party is another example of some of the fringe elements. They got my vote once on a lark.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-11-15 18:39:32

Dave the Rhino Party lokks like Rabbit's idea of a party.
Have you heard of Yahoo Serious? He is the Aussie guy in "Young Einstein" and a couple of other parodies I can't remember just now.
He ran as an independant, in Tasmania, back in the eightees, if I recall, and he had but one policy.
A PAIR OF
BLUNDSTONE BOOTS FOR EVERY AUSTRALIAN
As he answered when aksed why,
"They are good boots, and if every Aussie can say he got a good pair of boots out of his government this time round, we would see that as an improvement on past experience."Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-15 17:43:04

Rabbit likes the story thankyou. Such things give Rabbit an excited feeling in his heart. Probably in a past life Rabbit used to shoot big cannons. Have had a few glimpses of something occassionally that suggests this is a recurring theme for Rabbit.
Rabbit had an old American book with lots of amazing things in it, and it was pre American Civil war. Among the many weird and wonderful medicinal remiedies, and inks and everything was an excelent chapter on the manufacture of explosives and fireworks.
This was in fact the first literature Rabbit had about such things and he proceeded to experiment. As his rusty Chemistry started to catch up and Rabbit obtained modern books on the subject it began to dawn on Rabbit just how unstable some of the old fireworks mixtures really were. But not before a few interesting and exciting experiences. Some of these are better than the Rocket Powered Billy Cart. I'll probably set up a Blog soon, and may save the best till then.
The following is from much later when I had become licensed and was using commercial explosives.
Our Apple Orchard, which we'd inherited with the farm, was about 40 years old and we'd finally cleared most of it since the new house orchard, including lots of different apples, was coming into its first fruit. There remained just a couple of trees, a particularly robust and tall Apple tree variety as well. Rabbit got his old Massey Fergussen MF60, tractor and pushed and pulled on the tree, but it, wouldn't budge. Oh well thought Rabbit with a happy sigh, "I'll just have to blow it up".
Rabbit went down the hill, our block was sloping up away from the house at the bottom of the hill. Rabbit set up a nice big charge, and grabbed a bit of fuse and a det, went up the hill and poked the charge into a hole which he dug under the roots a bit. It was a bit bigger than necessary, but the last charge on an apple tree didn't sever the roots and he had to work a bit too hard to get it out still. Also Rabbit had not made a bang for a while and felt like a good bang.
Rabbit lit the fuse, and retired to a safe distance. Mrs Rabbit was watching out the kitchen window, about three hundred meters down the hill.
BOOM.......................................................^^.......................................
There was lots of smoke and dust, and the tree weighing about half a ton, lifted up like a rocket into the sky and in a big arc started flying, down the hill towards the house. At the apex of its travel it was about a hundred meters in the air. rabbit was running like crazy down the hill, but could do nothing. Mrs Rabbit ran out the back door and the tree finally landed with a thump, about three meters from the house door. It left a fair crater too.
Turns out there was rock not far under the tree at that spot, just a fluke, but it meant the ground didn't absorb as much of the blast as was normal in that soft soil.
Mrs Rabbit is remarkably tolerant of the old Rabbit sometimes. She was a bit peeved, and asked him to be more careful, which Rabbit ignored as always. She would have a very boring life without the Rabbit though, and in her heart she knows that.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-15 17:26:50

Thankyou Natalie, although Rabbit has no idea what political persuasion Jones has, it does not have any bearing. For a start as anybody will agree, there is bugger all difference between the two parties, at the end of the day. Secondly and most importantly, Natty, a BYU professor is not going to say something as incredibly far reaching as this, if he was not sure, that must be obvious. Thirdly Natalie, as the following article will show, he has plenty of support from other faculty members as well, maybe they are all democrats too?
Please do not insult Rabbit's intelligence by suggesting that UTAH, is not the heartland of Bush supporters. Rabbit has a Mormon family, deary, and knows all about it.

911 Demo: BYU's
Prof Jones Has Wide
Academic Support
BYU Professor Has Plenty of Company in the Academic Community,
Including 60 Faculty Members from Two Utah Universities
Who Concur a Controlled Demolition Most Likely Brought
Down the WTC and Further Investigation Is Needed
Source

Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-15 16:59:35

Thanks Natalie,
I am just a simple country boy. I have voted for Green Party candidates in the last few elections. Awaiting the return of the Rhino Party.
Happy to make you laugh. I do see things differently. Must be my bad eye ;)
Just kidding.
I live in British Columbia but on the mainland. Have visited Victoria several times. Glad you enjoyed your visit.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-11-15 13:38:00

Rabbit, I've been wanting to tell you this story, but I had to talk to my cousin and get some of the details right:
My grandmother's cousin, who owned the cinnibar mine and really was an old time hard rock miner, used to mix his nitro by the glacial stream just below the house. He would always say he liked it because he got more bang for the buck. The only joke I ever heard him make. He'd rack his product in a little shack next to the creek, and when finished, hang his little vials on little spings and wrapped in rags in the back of his old Ford truck and drive it on 8mi. of bad rock road up to the mine.
My grandmother, needless to say, didn't like him doing this so close to the house. When my grandfather installed a diesel generator in the shack it really pissed 'Uncle' Jim off, because it would go on automatically and shake the shack like an earthquake. So he built a new one about a hundred yards downstream.
Apparently it wasn't too windproof though, because one night everyone was awakened by a loud explosion. I wasn't there at the time, but my cousin says they found the remains of the corrugated steel roof about a quarter mile across the creek and up the mountainside.
One of Uncle Jim's boys became a geologist and because of his expertise in seismology and his activism in the Society of Friends, was instrumental in creating the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Just a point of family pride.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-11-15 09:22:56

David,
I love your sense of humor and the way your mind works. I don't think I'm anywhere near your political wave-length, but never-the-less you have a knack for seeing what most don't even consider. Haven't been to Canada since my honeymoon some 23 years ago, but I remember it to be an enchanting place. (Victoria, BC, at least.)
Rabbit,
You might be glad to hear that Steven Jones was featured on a cable network here. I have no idea what kind of television you have access to, but it was a show on MSNBC. Tucker Carlson, the Situation.
Tucker is a conservative, he was quite skeptical of Jones but was as usual very polite. Jones wanted them to run the video of WTC7 collapsing, but apparently they didn't have it prepared, and never did.
This is not grounds for dismissal, certainly, but let the record show that Jones is apparently very much a Democrat. He can't be lumped in with former Republican appointees and the like. I didn't learn this on the show, but came across his post at Democraticunderground.com.
I think it likely that he will be severely challenged on this forum, because I think many far left DUers would not see this position as desireable from an electoral standpoint.
It will be interesting to see if he posts anymore there.
"The tilting of the South Tower was also intriguing to many, squibs from the North Tower less so – but I spent most of the time on WTC 7. Also, the letter of Kevin Ryan carried weight evidently, along with protests about the destruction of the steel beams. My slides on Pathological Science were very useful in countering claims of the "official" theory.
That’s it for now.
Oh, you’ll notice in my talk an appeal to the Book of Mormon – which speaks over and over about “secret combinations”, “secret plans”, “secret societies” in the “last days.” This provided a means to overcome the barrier of “conspiracy theory nonsense” with this group. Won’t work for everyone, but this really is something we Mormons believe in and watch for…."
Best Regards,
Steven E. Jones
Jones on DUPosted by Natalie on 2005-11-15 09:03:01

Kuya says "Dude! Formidable thread! You guys really are hardcore!"
Major Major says "Not that formidable, Kuya. If you just ignore the flame war between Rabbit and Natalie, the thread boils down to approximately twenty-three posts."
(I think there are more than 23 posts. But, it doesn't matter, with those as a given and acknowledging the worthwhile tangent this thread has taken :)
Let us please see this thread to 999, 1000, 1001 and maybe beyond.
It is not so far to go.
Maybe our computers will explode and we will be set free?
Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!
Just praying so.....Posted by David in Canada on 2005-11-14 22:40:03

By the way, another thing which just occurred to Rabbit.
Thermite would not be detectable by ordinary bomb detection and bomb sniffing dogs. I think. Depending on what was used as a detonator, of course. Thermite takes a lot to ignite. Still the dets would be very small overall.
Electric Sparklers, are a typical thermite reaction.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-14 15:15:33

Thanks Dave
All creatures enjoy an occassional stroke, though Rabbit is generally immune to flattery as well as insults.
Too bad we have to be mean to such a girl as Natty, Rabbit would much rather stroke her too, even if we disgreed, but how can one remain pleasant to someone who so clearly has an agenda, and is prepared to behave so dishonestly just to stop anyone seeking truth. If the truth is as she says, then all the government needs to do is release all the evidence and allow an independant enquiry. Allow an investigation which asks what happened? Not as it is, a exercise in trying to back up a theory. It was well said here, in another article about Professor Jones.

According to Professor Jones, all of the laws of science and mathematics point directly to the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center and not to fire bringing down the three towers.
Through his intensive and methodical research, Jones has come to realize that the speed and symmetry of the collapse of the WTC buildings prove that the so-called official story must be false. He points to venting or squibs (smoke puffs) present around the collapsing structures as being direct indicators of the use of pre-positioned explosives. He also noted that the way that NASA infrared satellites and aircraft were able to take photos of the burning wreckage and molten steel for weeks was indicative of a massive use of thermite in the structure.
For Jones, the real problem with the official line on 9/11 is that it relies on wrong-headed science that starts with a conclusion and seeks out evidence that supports that theory to the exclusion of all others in order to cover up what really happened on September 11th. FEMA, the 9/11 Commission, and even the National Institute of Standards and Technology had all started with the supposition that what caused the WTC collapses was the impact of the jets and their exploding fuel and ignored any and all evidence to the contrary even though their findings were Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-14 15:10:40

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.
Henry David ThoreauPosted by David in Canada on 2005-11-14 10:51:03

Yes, I am sensitive, sometimes overly so. I like playing with you too Rabbit. It is fun.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Rabbit for his good works. Rabbit has tirelessly taken to task many issues and I would not see it be thanklessly so.
Thank you RabbitPosted by David in Canada on 2005-11-14 10:46:30

But how could Silverstein have arranged to "pull it" (his remarks) in the few hectic hours before the collapse? Normally, a controlled demolition requires days or weeks, not hours, of careful preparation. Jay claimed it could be done, but by whom?
Recall the streets around the collapsed Trade Towers were inaccessible, clogged with dust, piles of debris, wrecked fire trucks and police cars that morning. And thousands of fleeing New Yorkers.
Unless, of course, Silverstein had arranged the demolition days or weeks earlier. Because the laws of probability, weigh heavily against a professional demolition team arriving on the scene, unpacking their gear unnoticed, and rigging high explosives while several fires rage around and above them.
Since scientific people love Occam's Razor, I devised an even simpler rule. I call mine, "Doug's Denouement." According to the definition, a denouement (day-new-ma) is, "1:The outcome of a complex sequence of events. 2: the final resolution of the main complication of a literary or dramatic work. The unraveling or discovery of a plot, especially of a drama. 4: The solution of a mystery; issue; outcome."
Doug's Denouement: "If something looks like a conspiracy, sounds like a conspiracy, acts like a conspiracy, feels like a conspiracy, and smells rotten like a conspiracy, it probably is a conspiracy." My denouement follows the classic description of a duck that we know so well.
But wait, let me clarify things. It's not a conspiracy if it's a fact. And any fact found in the street weighs exponentially many times more than any official government version. At least in the last fifty years or so.
Wisely, BYU physics professor James avoided the question of Why the buildings were imploded (He didn't even mention that miraculous passport). Physics cannot be confused with philosophy or ethics, or even Forensics 101.
After September 11th, the forensic crime scene invetigators at the WTC site, and later at the ironically named Fresh Kills, sorted through dust looking for human remains while the bigger pieces of the puzzle (steel beams and girders) were hastily shipped to China. Why they did so may require a greater law than Murphy's or Newton's or Occam's Razor to discover.
Perhaps one day we'll call it Fitzgerald's Law.

Jay adhered to the official, government explanation for the collapse of the two taller towers, that they pancaked down due to truss failure, rather than imploded. He did admit that WTC-7 was "deliberately demolished with the permission of the owner."
According to Murphy's Law (one of many), "Any object when dropped will roll into the least accessible corner." Curiously, the three collapsed building, instead of falling all over the place, ALL fell exactly into their own footprints. Convenient. Perhaps the best Murphy's Law that applies to 911 is: "If you can't understand it, it is intuitively obvious."
Thus, if you can't understand it was controlled, than perhaps you are controlled, we 911 skeptics suggest.
I remarked that a stout 47 story skyscraper with a few fires raging in the lower floors (and just HOW did they start?) had collapsed suspiciously. Never happened before or since.
WTC-7 dropped"fell doesn't describe the rapidity--almost as fast as one of Newton's free-falling objects obeying his gravitational Law. Eye-witnesses to the collapse--firemen, policemen, news reporters"concurred, stating repeatedly the collapse resembled a "controlled demolition."
Recently, a BYU physics professor arrived at the exact same conclusion. A controlled demolition, he said, but for ALL three buildings. Now professor Steven Jones may, or may not, have applied Occam's Razor to the puzzle, or he may have reverted to Doyle's Dictum: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
Sir Isaac Newton, not to mention detectives Columbo & Holmes, (sounds like a TV show) may also wish to know why a man who just purchased a 47 story building which contained acres of US government records, Secret Service offices and Mayor Giuliani's emergency command post, would choose to destroy it? And most importantly, How?
Now if we apply Occam's Razor (that the simplest explanation is usually the most likely), recent owner Larry Silverstein is simply guilty of massive insurance fraud. And destruction of government property. And conspiracy. And perjury. And reckless endangerment.
Because any man who buys a piece of property, purchases massive amounts of insurance, and purposely destroys it weeks later, only to claim many times the amount of what that property is worth, is almost always a criminal suspect.
And Silverstein admitted doing it. His words to that effect were taped.

Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-14 02:04:12

Sometimes one comes across something which says it so well it is worth the cut and paste especially when Natty would answer the link itself with no more than its Rense so how could it be anything.
Well this could truly be said to be sourced at Rense itself,... see,.. exclusive.. So read the truth and see how corrupt and and craven anyone would have to be to maintain your line of non-reasoning, faith based, slander. Even the so-called suicide bombers are probably being slandered, by the real culprits.

Murphy's Law & 911
Exclusive to Rense.com
By Douglas Herman
douglasherman7@yahoo.com
11-13-5
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." ~ Arthur Conan Doyle
As a testimony to a couple of legendary but fictional detectives, I once wrote a pair of Internet essays called "Detective Columbo Asks: Was 911 An Inside Job?" and another entitled, "Sherlock Holmes & 911...The ULTIMATE Unsolved Mystery." Just imagine the conversation detective Columbo might have had with Watson and Holmes, as that trio stared at the pile of wreckage in the weeks after 911.
As one of the more iconoclastic writers on the Internet, I get a lot of intelligent emails contesting my viewpoints. Recently a man named Jay emailed me in reference to 911 and said I didn't know the laws of physics. He said I didn't know what I was talking about, didn't know metallurgy, didn't know mathematics.
I have to admit Jay was more than a little correct. I scarcely know the difference between Newton's Three Laws of Motion and Murphy's Law. So I decided to do a little snooping around and see if I couldn't learn a lot more about laws. Helps to know what you,re talking about.
In a recent Rense essay, the one that bothered Jay, I took MIT to task for implying that the Twin Towers collapsed due to sudden weakening of the steel caused by fire. I suggested MIT engineers should just build a scale model and prove their unscientific theory. Because 911 heretics like myself just don't buy it.
Jay, a machinist, claimed you couldn't build a forty or fifty foot scale model of the Twin Towers (1/25 scale) and replicate the collapse using a scale model of a Boeing 757. Mentioned something about the differences between the mass of the real structures and the mass of the models, plus a whole bunch of other technical data.
He quoted the rule of Occam's Razor "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate""or Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler. Detectives often use Occam's razor to shave in the morning before locating the culprits in most crimes.
Curiously, the name Occam, or Ockham, wasn't applied to the razor until several hundred years later. Sometimes, when you cut away the simplest explanation, you realize it isn't always correct.

Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-14 02:02:32

"In general, they show people performing their duties very heroically and very professionally on a day of horror," PA spokesman Greg Trevor said.
Most of the conversations are disjointed. Frightened people routinely interrupt each other. Some calls break off. Others are drowned out by screams.
There are repeated references to wailing sirens, and there is great confusion.
At one point in the radio dispatches, there is a report of a "possible missile launching from the Woolworth Building," a landmark a few blocks away.
Another person called out: "They're shooting at the Trade Center from the Woolworth Building."
Throughout, terror is pervasive.
"Another plane just hit the building," a man says.
"They said another plane just ... flew by and hit Building 2."

Maybe Rabbit is being over sensitive about the hacky things, he can find nothing after all,, but he doesn't trust anything you post which starts expecting his computer to download anything.
Still no difference. The article is too long to post it has been Linked and it is much bigger and more substantial than Natty's nit, about a second hand report and speculation.

From Fulton Street, Reifenberg could see the South Tower. He began to make the short walk toward it. Just as he stepped into the Plaza, about 50 yards from the Tower, a strange noise filled the air.
"There was a 'swooshing' sound, then an explosion, and it sounded really low," Reifenberg recalled. "It was if someone, one or two floors above me, had launched a shoulder-fired missile."
Because it sounded so low, Reifenberg, and several other people, ducked to the ground. After moving slightly forward, he then looked up and saw a huge black hole near the top of Tower 2.
"It was strange, for some reason I didn't even connect the loud noise with the hole which was now smoking," he said. "I just thought, 'wow-what a bad fire,' and stopped to watch along with everyone else. No one really knew what was going on there. We just stood in awe, and the street traffic stopped."

Have we had This opinion yet?
Four months after 9/11 to the chagrin of the US Government former German Intelligence Minister Von Bulow spilled the 9/11 beans in an interview in the German daily newspaper, Tagesspiegel:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/VonBuelow.html
This is one hell of a big and varied choir.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-14 00:53:36

Of course we never forget even though Natty does, that we, and the people like Szymanski, are speculating upon known facts, not maintaining that we know what happened and all other possibilities are thence crap.
Another fact which you are now making a habit of ignoring is that the Government is witholding all the evidence. rabbit long since suggested you answer how that sits with any credibility you claim for them. You go back a couple of posts and read it. the things you are now failing to make much of a dent in, are nothing more tha articles about 911, they are posted for people to read and think about, invetsigate if they wish. Rabbit his indicated the fqact that he is not averse to them, they seem probable and until he has looked more closely himself he is not going top commit himself. You have of course forgotten about how you babble on about being discerning. What you really meant is to believe only the official line and no more. It is telling that you can see dozens of well sourced and verifiable articles about thses things, and yet you could see no more than a telivision report saying something had been said and you'd defend that to thje death. You have, not for the first time resorted to ad hominem attacks on sources and stories without even having read or verified them. Rabbit has read your so-called sources and dismantled them if necessary from a factual basis, no speculation, no innuendos, just staright up facts and related to the sources' claims, not who the sources were. You asked for experts and you got more experts than you could attack the characters of, though you tried, until you were left with nothing but sly innuendos, based on nothing but your dirty winking eye.
You have a lot more attempts at debunking Natty, you have not touched the 90% of what has been presented and others who have read it have indicated it has convinced them. the CHOIR is growing and you are not even welcome to join, you jkust stay over there. Now how about you start on torture, forget this you've long since lost the 911 debate, the thing is probably going to be decided in the courts one of these days, and at the very least neither you nor Rabbit will get much older before the perpetrators are made known. the JUNTA is long since on its final downward spiral..
OK Rabbit, expects that your mob is going to take off the gloves before long, they have no choice because within six months 60% of the US population is going to be screaming for Bush's impeachment and the whole Junta's crimanal trials. Rabbit feels very confidant in predicting the Junta's demise, but he is not a naive Rabbit, and expects them to make a lot more mess before they are brought to justice, or at least desptroyed.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-14 00:48:56

Your link is not right, it is once again connected to nasty hacking things and Rabbit is not going near it. New computer is clean and you are not getting at Rabbit so easily this time. Try making an honest link, SHILL!Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-14 00:14:58

No way Natty. That is the stupidist little nit you ever picked. There is nothing wrong with saying flight 93 was in the vicinity for this is implicitly implied by the fact that Clevland took and interest. You are just doing the usual. If you doubtr the veracity, go and find something which refutes it.
the link on the rense article was broken within hours of it being posted, that is common when you scumbags are caught out, the links worked yesterday for Rabbit but can see they no longer dpo. They don't just use professional liars like you, we know that shutting down articles on the net and hacking is big on your favorites list too. it is you guys doing the coverup, and Natty stop being pathetic. The public awareness of the scale of the LIE is growing daily, that has also been obvious in this thread. You are the fading party, you still have nothing except diversions and avoidance, anmd you still fail to address anything of significance.,.\
How do seven Suicide bombers survive alive? That is roughly the tenth time Rabbit raises that one. This thread stands as ulimate proof that you have raised a few small issues, failed to be able to make them stand up to anything except more damage to your own cause, and mostly avoided 90%, the most important 90% of the postings you are suppopsedly refuting.
by the way did you think no one would notice that the thing you quoted is not first hand witnesses and is only speculation. It would not be admissible in court, he saw nothing and admits it. He speculated on the thing only and you just posted that in answer to dozens of different sources on that particular story. rabbit din't want ot post the whole thing but since you choose to misrepresent it he shall now have to do so.. Besdt way to show your lies. It will take a while to attach all the links but I'll do it, just to piss you off.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-14 00:12:58

"Natty my source, linked directly to the original artcile so it is a bit hollow to suggest it was anything but 100% accurate. Rabbit looks at your quotes and seePosted by Natalie on 2005-11-13 23:57:03

Rabbit would be less than honest if he was unduly pleasant to you Natty, but surely you understand. It is your dishonesty, your sleaze which has done it.
Will she be back to back her useless attack? Or was she just clocking in there? Just a guerilla tactic, hit and run?Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-13 23:21:30

Oh and Natty, we are the majority these days, remember the polls? So if WE say Symanski is a very respectable journalist and is far out in front of most of the MSM in courage and honesty, soory old girl, we are the majority. the guy is ace. He also does things like "PROVING" his sources, something the MSM has long since forgotten was necessary.
Got the flight number wrong above, but you can correct Rabbit on it and it will be like......................... the first thing you ever successfully corrected Rabbit on.
Natty you don't feel that since we have so far won every single exchange of facts and sourcing, that you should call it a day? You are losing this one so much worse than the DU one, which rabbit predicted. You may not have noticed but a few have come by this thread and gone from your side, or neutral, to realising the truth. Nobody has come close to taking you seriously. Baby even the house Trolls are not prepared to join you in this one. The same thing happened on the Depleted Uranium thread. Not even the House Trolls were prepared to sink that low, even they have more sense than to try and push this lie. They feel it in their silly hearts, the day of reckoning is near and the 911 lie, is doomed.
How poorly must a case stack up before even the House Trolls will not touch it? Not even Scorpy is going to play. Natty you are beginning to smell on this thread too. You have even without Rabbit's help exposed your Shill status, but there is one final test, the triple Shill Test Rabbit calls this process. One more issue you have no doubt been assigned to monitor. Torture. Let us go somewhere and you can support the US torturing people. That is your position isn't it lovely girl? US torture, is not the same as the Nad Guys, it is Democratic Torture. Humane Rape and Torture, isn't it Natty.
Come on Bitch, let's see your fangs.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-13 22:36:30

More innuendods and speculation with not a scrap of anything. Natty my source, linked directly to the original artcile so it is a bit hollow to suggest it was anything but 100% accurate. Rabbit looks at your quotes and see's nothging which was not said in the original article, have no idea what you are getting at. The fact that the people who were referemced obviously declined to comment, is a surprise to you? Or maybe you are trying to pretend that they meant they could not find them? Natty are you old enough to drive? natty governmnet people are always refusing to be available to comment on such issues, but you conventiently avoid mentioning the rest of the story and that there is more reference to other media sources. NO sorry natty dfear we'll be sticking with this one unless you can do better than that. You are a foll for even trying, since by the way, it is only listed as a news story. Rabbit has not said he believs it is tru. he certainly believes it seems probable, because it is providing answers to things which have been speculated about for a while. Rabbit always knows when you are being briefed on the new angle of attack, the latest propaganda. It only happens with the new stuff, things which the Junta has not yet had time to formalise a resonse to. You dispaear just as long as it tales beofr ethe new, co-ordinated response is up and running. You have been doing it for months and it is funny to watch.
Now you have obviously not looked too closely at anything which has been postedm especially the Flight 977 and 175 stuff, so best go and do some more study and don't come round here making a bigger fool of your self. Unless of course abject humiliation is your turn on. It must be, it is all you've ever experienced around here. So long as you remain intellectually barren and morally bankrupt so it shall remain too.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-13 22:25:39

"AND Natty, all the denials by you is not going to change the fact that this story alone, may be the death knell of the whole LIE."
You are indeed correct, Rabbit, that in the case of the article describing a Boeing 767 landing safely in Cleveland, Greg Szymanski via Rense.com is referencing a story from a small but presumably legitimate news organization. However, what is not apparent to the casual reader, and that would appear to include you, is that the story retold by Szymanski has evolved, and has been molded into something that conveniently meets the requirements of reviving a fading fantasy.
Here is the relevant part of the original story by WCPO Cleveland obtained from the web archive of the page:
Plane Lands In Cleveland; Bomb Feared Aboard
Reported by: 9News Staff
Web produced by: Liz Foreman
9/11/01 11:43:57 AM
A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White.
White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated.
United identified the plane as Flight 93. The airline did say how many people were aboard the flight.
United said it was also "deeply concerned" about another flight, Flight 175, a Boeing 767, which was bound from Boston to Los Angeles.original story
Here is the relevant part of the recent article authored by Greg Szymanski:
On the morning of 9/11 a little known Cincinnati television station ran a story saying Flight 93 landed at Cleveland International Airport instead of crashing in Penn. as claimed in the official government story. Reporters at WCPO Channel 9 quoted then Cleveland Mayor Michael R. White as saying "a Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing due to a bomb threat," the airplane landing safely, moved to a secure location and evacuated.
The early morning report went on to say United Airlines verified the plane as Flt. 93, but was also deeply concerned about another jetliner in the vicinity, Flight 175, flying from Boston to Los Angeles.
Former Mayor White, as well as United and WCPO, could not be reached for comment, but the evidence still remains, even though it was suspiciously removed from the television's web site in June 2004 in and around the time of the 9/11 Commission hearings.....
Nobody could be reached for comment? I find that a little hard to believe.
......With the evidence trail getting colder and colder, the obvious still must be asked: if Flight 175 was slamming into the South Tower and Flight 93 was downed over Penn. like the govt. contends, why was Mayor White saying both planes were in the vicinity of Cleveland?
Szymanski is clearly equating the plane in Cleveland with the one that crashed in Pennsylvania. One problem is that Flight 93 was out of Newark, not Boston. Another is that it was a 757, not a 767.
Later, he adds the phrase "in the vicinity" which was not contained in the original story, I guess so he could include Flight 175 in the "mystery".
To be sure, there is likely some errors in the original story (hence their retraction), as I don't think United would have two Flight 93's flying on the same day. There was another flight, that was a 767, Delta 1989, that did do an emergency landing at Cleveland that morning, along with confusion as to whether or not it had a bomb on board.
Szymanski is either deliberately dissembling, or is an incredibly poor journalist not to do basic fact-checking and point some of this stuff out. I suspect that he is intentionally trying to turn a simple mistake or two on the part of the reporter or United on a day of incredible confusion and panic into some grand nefarious scheme, with the bottom line intention of keeping his wallet full and his particular type of readership satisfied.Posted by Natalie on 2005-11-13 22:04:24

Actually with the stuff being found now about the flights 77 and 175, this here and the Prof from BYU as the latest to join the Choir, this has all the makings of a landslide any one of these days.
The pressure is building, they only have so much they can do to hold it back, but it if keeps building the breakthrough is only a matter of when, not if. This is a very well referenced thing for all it's newness to Rabbit. Have not yet checked all the sources it gives. Something tells the old Rabbit it has legs though.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-13 19:01:37

This is new just when you thought you'd heard all about 911, there is this one.
Missiles from Woolworths?Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-13 18:55:42

Sorry Dave Rabbit just realised he missed a couple of lines and the gospel was referring to Aaron Neville. (Rabbit has no idea who he is, btw.)Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-13 18:39:58

Eric Bogle (born September 23, 1944) is a Scottish-born Australian singer and songwriter. He was born in Peebles, Scotland, and emigrated to Australia in 1969. He currently resides near Adelaide, South Australia. Perhaps his best-known song, written in 1972, is "And The Band Played Waltzing Matilda", a haunting evocation of the ANZAC experience fighting in the Battle of Gallipoli; it has also been interpreted as a reaction to the Vietnam war.
His songs cover a wide range, including bright comic songs, satires ("I Hate Wogs"), protest songs and other serious considerations of the human condition. Some idea of the breadth of his work can be gained from the fact that another of his well-known songs is "The Aussie Bar-B-Q", a cheerful ditty about a completely different Australian institution.
In a similar vein to "And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda", his song "No Man's Land" refers to the old Scots song "Flowers of the Forest" being played over the grave of a World War I soldier. (Bogle is also on record as calling the song "The Green Fields of France", and it has sometimes been covered as "Flowers of the Forest".)
On the lighter end of the scale, other well-known songs include two homages to departed pets, "Little Gomez" and "Nobody's Moggy Now", and his homage/diatribe to his folk music fans, "Do You Know Any Dylan?".
Many of his songs have been extensively covered by other artists, particularly those in an anti-war vein. "And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda" and "No Man's Land" both gained fame in versions by June Tabor and The Clancy Brothers. "And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda" was covered by John McDermott and The Pogues, and "All the Fine Young Men" was recorded by De Dannan. Recently, the Dropkick Murphys covered "The Green Fields of France.""

That is actually from Wikipedia, how cool, Mr Bogle is in a big internet encyclopedia.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-13 18:36:52

Dave Eric Bogle isn't into Gospel Music. He is an (the) Aussie folk singer.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-13 18:34:09

Rabbit wasn't having a dig at Dave, but at the Christians since it is their thread, even if they won't come out and claim it. Du er en folsome Fisk>. A sensitive fishy. Rabbit doesn't hurt his friend the curious fish monkey. Likes to play with him, since he does do funny things and Rabbits like funny things to. Have told you about Rabbits and Ball sports?
Lume you an Eric Bogle fan?
Rabbit thinks of him as our answer to The Minstrel himself, Aussie Gold.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-13 18:32:43

...or maybe you weren't having a dig? Doesn't matter.
Luminous Beauty, thanks for the recommendation. I like gospel music too.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-11-13 18:10:14

Thanks Rabbit, I understand. I knew you were having a dig, sorry for getting a little bristly.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-11-13 18:03:50

David, if you want to hear an excellent rendering of "With God on Our Side" may I recommend the version by Aaron Neville, If you like Black Gospel at all. I do.
Here's my offering in this spirit of Armistice Day:

Eric Bogle--No Man's Land
Well how do you do Private William McBride,
Do you mind if I sit here down by your graveside?
And rest for awhile beneath the warm summer sun,
I've been walking all day and now I'm nearly done
I see by your gravestone you were only nineteen
When you joined the glorious fallen in 1916;
Well I hope you died quick and I hope you died clean,
Or, young Willie McBride, was it slow and obscene?
Did they beat the drum slowly,
Did they play the fife lowly?
Did they sound the Death March
As they lowered you down?
Did the band play
"The Last Post And Chorus?"
Did the pipes play
"The Flowers Of The Forest?"
Did you leave 'ere a wife or a sweetheart behind?
In some faithful heart is your memory enshrined?
And although you died back in 1916,
In that faithful heart are you forever nineteen?
Or are you a stranger without even a name,
Enclosed forever behind a glass pane,
In an old photograph, torn, and battered and stained,
And faded to yellow in a brown leather frame?
Did they beat the drum slowly,
Did they play the fife lowly?
Did they sound the Death March
As they lowered you down?
Did the band play
"The Last Post And Chorus?"
Did the pipes play
"The Flowers Of The Forest?"
Ah the sun now it shines on these green fields of France,
The warm summer breeze makes the red poppies dance,
And look how the sun shines from under the clouds;
There's no gas, no barbed wire, there're no guns firing now.
But here in this graveyard is still No Man's Land,
The countless white crosses in mute witness stand
To man's blind indifference to his fellow man,
To a whole generation that was butchered and damned.
Did they beat the drum slowly,
Did they play the fife lowly?
Did they sound the Death March
As they lowered you down?
Did the band play
"The Last Post And Chorus?"
Did the pipes play
"The Flowers Of The Forest?"
Ah, young Willie McBride, I can't help wonder why,
Did all those who lay here really know why they died?
And did they believe when they answered the call,
Did they really believe that this war would end war?
For the sorrow, the suffering, the glory, the pain,
The killing and dying were all done in vain,
For, young Willie McBride, it all happened again,
And again and again and again and again.
Did they beat the drum slowly,
Did they play the fife lowly?
Did they sound the Death March
As they lowered you down?
Did the band play
"The Last Post And Chorus?"
Did the pipes play
"The Flowers Of The Forest?"

It has beautiful traditional Irish tune. I weep like a baby whenever I hear it.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-11-13 16:03:25

Actually Rabbit was making a transparent reference back on topic, really. But true anyway, I think.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-13 14:25:30

Sorry Dave, Rabbit knows why you posted the stories, and was concerned you might misunderstand he was having a dig, but no, only meant that some of the stories and the format especially was familiar from his days in Church. Using them as a serious comparison, is all.
The Dylan song is "With God on Our Side"Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-13 14:23:36

Luminous Beauty, great article on Islamic Science and a special thank you for digging out the original of the Preacher and the Bear . I really enjoyed it.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-11-13 11:43:50

Rabbit, they were just simple stories. Some satire and comedy too. I never attributed infallibility or accuracy to any of them. Just shared them for discussion
You say " If it is OK for someone to come around to my door and tell me that his religion is the ducks nuts,then it is OK for some dipshit to do the same thing and tell me there is no GOD."
There is a door to door guy here in my town who does just that : knocks on doors to tell people there is no God. He even has tracts to leave behind if you were not home. And the world goes round.
Thanks for posting the Dylan song. What is the title of that song please ?Posted by David in Canada on 2005-11-13 10:21:42

I found this interesting and informative essay on the history of Islamic Science . It touches directly on some of the issues raised on this thread. When considered in the light of the Bush Administrations misuse and abuse of Science and what has been happening in Kansas and Dover, Pa. is quite illuminating of the lugubrious forces modern Conservatism has unleashed upon the world.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-11-13 10:15:21

That's right Natty, Nothing NEW.
It has been said by some for a long time, it is nothing new to us. You are a professional liar, it is nothing new to you. But it is now being said by a respected Brigham Young University Professor, as well as ex administration officials amd many other qualified and respected people. Like the Article says, you mob will now go into overdrive to give the guy hell, destroy him, even kill him. God help the poor bastard because he comes across as a complete innocent. He is actually asking the government for evidence which nobody has been able to get near in four years. He has already been unwise in his choice of words and Rabbit expects he is already being roasted, out of context, but the liars are clutching at straws now and they'll take anything. They might just have to give up soon, and stop pussyfooting around. that means they will simply arrest him and hold him without charges, incommunicado , the works, they can now you know. They won't do it unless they have to, but soon they will have to. That or give up and face the music. Not likely. Natty is here to try and save their asses. She and her type are the frontline defences now, against the doom which is aproaching them. It is the light of truth which is the danger, and since you stand for darkness, as the story above points out truthfully, their is no darkness, it is just the absence of light. You Natty and Liars like you are only trying to hold back the light. You don't have any power of your own, in the way we have the truth. You can only try to stop, Dam up, or destroy. You might as well try and stop the sun coming up. You don't have enough towels, blankets or serviettes in the cupboard to cover the Big Pink Elephant Natty and Rabbit is not the only one who would appreciate it if you would drop it. We'll call it a draw. You did not prove the buildings could have fallen down from a plane and a fire. Rabbit did not prove that they fell down from explosives.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-13 02:43:19

Notice the Mention of WTC-7 and the times. The article is worth a read, it is by Symanski and is the latest and most compact appraisal of where we currently stand. Obviously Rabbit is not addressing this to natty, it is too late for deniars. Those interested in the latest 911 news do take the time to look.
Good Summary
Prof Jones main points, in his words.
* The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" - and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job."
* No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says.
* WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors - and intact steel support columns - the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.
* With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing - and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."
* Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.
* Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel - and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.
* Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal," Jones says.
* Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says. Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-13 02:25:53

As for the professor and the class with no brain. Not one of them could see that the obvious answer is that GOD is all, just because he has evil, does not make him evil. God has all Love in him too. He is all, having the evil and the good, in infinite measure is why it is GOD. God is neither he nor she, GOD is if we are to be quite correct an IT.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-13 01:36:53

Hello to others on thread, Rabbit reads the thingys.
Dave, some of those stories Rabbit heard in church years ago, they are sort of Backslapping exercises, they get up sying these things in their sermons and "Witnessing" or "Tesifying", they tell such little strories to each other smiling in self satisfied ways, seeing and revelling in a pround logic which is completely imaginary. The stories fail in their very essence to establish the things for which they are usually used. Much the same as the often illogical, largely Faith Based arguments which steer most of their lives.
They may well tell a story, but not the one they envision. They even had some currency with Rabbit way back then, they are of course satire. The poor old Christians see some justification in the fact that some arsehole attacks somebody in the name of his GOD. Ok the Prof was an arse hole, but the story was rigged against him in the first place, because in real life, even many atheist students would have called the good professor to task on grounds of etiquette if nothing else. Rabbit finds the Christian acceptance that it was cool for the soldier to assault the Prof because he was expressing his Disbelief. So what if he was doing it loudly, and irritatingly from a public platform? What then is public sermons, proselytising, and door knocking. If it is OK for someone to come around to my door and tell me that his religion is the ducks nuts, then it is OK for some dipshit to do the same thing and tell me there is no GOD.
So the story shows the Violent, crusading nature of Christianity, while it gives NO credence to the idea of GOD.
The bear stories show that whether or not there is a god is not going to make a scrap of difference to your life. Because he is no more involved with earth and it's creatures daily affairs than the Moon...............in fact.. probably a whole lot less.
Thankyou Mr Zimmerman
Oh my name it is nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that land that I live in
Has God on its side.
Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.
Oh the Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I's made to memorize
With guns in their hands
And God on their side.
Oh the First World War, boys
It closed out its fate
The reason for fighting
I never got straight
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side.
When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.
I've learned to hate Russians
All through my whole life
If another war starts
It's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side.
But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.
In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.
So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.
Bob DylanPosted by Rabbit on 2005-11-13 01:33:29

Oh............Natty.
Rabbit who has read the report from Professor Jones, just twigged to another one of your stupid self defeating statements. How could you make any judgement of what Professor Steven Jones, was saying, about how "original" or otherwise it was? You haven't read it, only an article about it. Caught yourself out bigtime there. Now the facts which he is relying upon are certainly not new. They are as has been said here all along, FACTS and are not refuted. This is why no new FACTS were being presented, as said, we have them, and we have had them all along, that is why so many of us have known the truth all along.
You started by claiming there was no scientific, qualified support. Now Rabbit has given you bucket loads, and we are getting new stuiff daily. The BYU Professor, is just the latest, but it all spells DOOM for your case. DOOM for the EVIL JUNTA, your masters, and Natty, DOOM for Vampires who will be having the light shined into their piggy little eyes.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-13 01:01:56

Oh and Natty, isn't it obvious why Jones does not provide any original thinking?
Because you dumb tart, there is no great mystery, the whole thing is obvious, and the only NEW thinking which was ever applied to the WTC collpases, was the attempt at blidsiding the whole scientific and Engineering community with such a pumped up, wobbly deck of cards, which is what the offiicial lie is. There is no new ideas needed to understand the truth here, people just need a bit of an awakener to see it, and Natty, they are waking up. Rabbit xan just sit here and watch your cause go down the drain by the day. Jones like anybody who stands up and defies your evil masters, is taking a chance and your innuendos about his motives suck deeply. To tell this truth takes courage. Rabbit who is among those who have been telling it since the begginning, and we were a small and much maligned minority back then, Rabbit knows it takes courage of the kind your side is devoid of.
By the way rabbit has not poo-pooed any experts, he has pointed out where they had erred in using false intel to arrive at their conclusions. Rabbit pointed out that most of the experts quoted by you, are being taken out of context, which was shown, and in the end, none of them do or can deny that the buildings were brought down by explosives. T
Now for fun, see how the new choir member sings, Nat the dead in the water bat.
Prof. Jones Tallks To
Arctic Beacon On WTC DemoYour boat don't float girly, your ship went straight to the bottom again.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-12 22:08:09

The Choir is growing Natalie and you don't have a story which works, so your cause is doomed.
How was it to actually read an account from the real news media? Must have startled you cuz you quickly retreated back to your comfort zone.
For your dumbfounded information, clown....... Rabbit keeps track of ALL media sources, and he found this particular article quite by chance, via his "Alternative Media" sources which as has been pointed out repeatedly, mostly link to MSM sources. All the sources posted by Rabbit have been "REAL MEDIA" you stupid girl, you have cast your innuendos, on most of them, but it hasn't won you any ground. The fact remains that Natty, The Expert opinion about the Obvious controlled demolition, is mounting and it6 has always been there. Don't expect new people to come on board and say anything different. the fact that they com,e on aboard and agree with us, is what is most telling. Your cause is doomed Natty, and it always has been. You can't cover up a lie this big, even with millions of dollars worth of false prpganda, of which you are a part, despite your belated and throughly discrefdited denials.
Did Natty read the Article which is about the two flights? the information comes from the "Real Media" as you define it, Natty. The thing is a couple of internet researchers found the information and brought it into the open. The story makes it quite clear there is something VERY serious going down here. As for Barabara Olson being among them. More of your strawman disinfo tricks. the information did not refer to any actual passengers being identified, merely trhat the two flights landed somewhere they should not have.
AND Natty, all the denials by you is not going to change the fact that this story alone, may be the death knell of the whole LIE.
Keep on squirming and denying it Natty. The rate things are going Rabbit expects to have you on hand when the final blow comes, and it feels like it could be approaching fast.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-12 21:35:11

Oh, for Christ's sake. Why do the Marines always get stuck with doing God's dirty work? Let us pray: "This is my rifle. My rifle is my friend..."
LB's contribution to the thread reminds me of a joke I heard on the radio, that the Ten Commandments were removed from the Courthouse vestibule because among all the lawyers, businessfolk and politicians who frequent the building someone wopuld be sure to sue the city "for creating a hostile work environment."Posted by Major Major on 2005-11-12 11:36:23

I posted this on another thread but I don't think anyone but chopper read it.
A young couple were on their way through the Sierras to Reno in order to be wed, when their car went over the mountainside and crashed, killing them both instantly.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-11-12 10:33:27

The original

The Preacher and the Bear
A Preacher went out huntin, t'was on one Sunday morn
He knew its against his religion, but he took his gun along
He shot himself three mighty fine quail
and one little measly hare
And on his way returning home,
he saw a great big Grizzly Bear
Now the bear marched out in the middle of the road
and waltzed to the Preacher you see
The Preacher got so excited, he climbed up a 'simmon tree
The bear sat down upon the ground,
the Preacher climbed out on a limb
Well he cast his eyes to the Lord in the skies,
and these words he said to Him
Oh Lordy, didn't you deliver Daniel from the lion's den
Also, deliver Jonah, from the belly of a whale and then
Three Hebrew children from the fiery furnace
so the Good Book do declare
Now Oh Lord, if you can't help me,
well then please don't-cha help that bear
Now the Preacher was up in that tree,
I think it was all night
He said Mr Bear if you bother me,
I'll give you an awful fight
Just about that time the limb let go
and the Preacher came tumblin' down
You could see him getting his razor out
before he hit the ground
He hit the ground cuttin' right and left,
he put up a very game fight
Just then the bear grabbed the Preacher,
and he squeezed him a little too tight
The Preacher dropped his razor, the bear held on with a vim
Well he cast his eyes to the Lord in the skies
and these words he said to Him
Oh Lordy, didn't you deliver Daniel from the lion's den
Also, deliver Jonah, from the belly of a whale and then
Three Hebrew children from the fiery furnace
so the Good Book do declare
Now Oh Lord, if you can't help me,
well then please don't-cha help that bear
They fought all the way to the river,
it was a terrible fight
That bear just kept a-hanging on,
but the Preacher was a-doing all right
He dragged that beast right down in the water
it was three times in and out
Then the bear got up and he limped away
and the Preacher began to shout
Oh, Lordy, didn't you deliver Daniel from the lion's den
Also, deliver Jonah, from the belly of a whale, Amen,
And oh Lord, it may not seem like much from way up there,
But the hardest thing I ever done was baptize that (bleep bleep) bear.
Composed or copyrighted in 1903 by George W. Fairman.

Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-11-12 10:14:02

and yet another ...
An atheist professor was teaching a college class and he told the class that he was going to prove that there is no God.
He said, "God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you 15 minutes!"
Ten minutes went by.
The professor kept taunting God, saying, "Here I am, God. I'm still waiting."
He got down to the last couple of minutes and a Marine just released from active duty, and newly registered in the class, walked up to the professor, hit him full force in the face, and sent him flying from his platform.
The professor struggled up, obviously shaken and yelled, "What's the matter with you? Why did you do that?"
The Marine replied, "God was busy, so He sent me."Posted by David in Canada on 2005-11-12 09:51:48

another variation ...
A college class was led by an atheist professor, and every day he'd stand in front of his class and say, "Have you ever seen God?" to which nobody would answer. Then he'd ask, "Have you ever felt God?" and nobody would answer. Finally he'd ask, "Have you ever heard God?" and, like the other times, nobody would answer. He then would say, "It is obvious that there is no God."
One day a Christian student had been having an extremely bad day; her car broke down, her mother was sick, her boyfriend was out of town, and she'd gotten a bad grade on one of her exams. She had been fed up with her professor's little act every morning, so she decided to do something about it.
While the professor stood up at the beginning of class and did his thing, the student had an idea. She got up and said, "Professor, would you mind if I said something?" He said, "Of course not. This is an expressive classroom, and I think it would be fine if you spoke your mind."
The girl said to the class, "Have you ever seen our professor's brain?" and nobody answered. Then she asked, "Have you ever felt our professor's brain?" and nobody answered. Finally she asked, "Have you ever heard our professor's brain?" and, like the other times, nobody answered.
She then said, "It is quite obvious that our professor has no brain."Posted by David in Canada on 2005-11-12 09:50:41

Does evil exist?
The university professor challenged his students with this question. Did God create everything that exists? A student bravely replied, "Yes, he did!"
"God created everything? The professor asked.
"Yes sir", the student replied.
The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are then God is evil". The student became quiet before such an answer. The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.
Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question professor?"
"Of course", replied the professor.
The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"
"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question.
The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."
The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"
The professor responded, "Of course it does."
The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."
Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"
Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."
To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."
The professor sat down.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-11-12 09:49:39

another variation ...
An atheist was taking a walk through the woods, admiring all that the accident of evolution had created. "What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!" he said to himself.
As he walked alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look, just in time to see a 7-foot grizzly charge towards him. He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder & saw the bear closing in on him. He tried to run even faster, so scared that tears were coming to his eyes. He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer.
His heart was pumping frantically as he tried to run even faster, but he tripped and fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up and saw the bear right on top of him raising his paw to kill him.
At that instant, he cried out, "Oh my God!"
Just then, time stopped... The bear froze; the forest was silent; even the river stopped moving. A bright light shone upon the man, and a voice came out of the sky, saying, "You deny My existence all of these years; teach others I don't exist; even credit My creation to a cosmic accident, and now do you expect Me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?"
The atheist, ever so proud, looked into the light and said, "It would be rather hypocritical to ask to be a Christian after all these years. But could you make the bear a Christian?"
"Very well," said the voice.
As the light went out, the river ran, the sounds of the forest continued, and the bear put his paw down. The man breathed a sigh of relief. Then the bear brought both paws together, bowed his head and said: "Lord, I thank you for this food, which I am about to receive."Posted by David in Canada on 2005-11-12 09:46:56

A minister is hiking through the woods one Sunday after delivering his sermon. As he is walking along, he spots a hungry bear. Unfortunately for the minister, the bear spots him, and begins to chase him through the forest.
At first, it appears that the minister might make it, but the chase wears on, and the bear begins to gain on the minister. Finally, the minister trips on a rock, and knowing he had no other chance, begins to pray.
"Lord," says the man, "I'll never ask you for anything, ever again, but please, hear my prayer. Dear God, make this bear a Christian." The minister turns around and, to his surprise and joy, the bear stops in his tracks. His paws together and his head bowed in prayer, the bear says, "Lord, thank you for this food I am about to eat!"Posted by David in Canada on 2005-11-12 09:44:55

Three people were about to be executed during the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution: a Rabbi, a Priest and a Secular Humanist.
The executioner dragged the Rabbi from the cart and shoved him onto the platform of the guillotine.
"Have you any last words for the crowd before you die?", he asked.
"I believe in the one, true God," he shouted, "the God of Abraham and Moses. He will save me from this ignominious demise."
The executioner forced his head into the cradle of guillotine, locked it in place, raised the blade and released it. The blade dropped to within one centimeter of the Rabbi's neck and, Thump!, stopped.
"Oooh, a miracle!", cried the crowd, and the executioner was compelled to release the Rabbi.
"Told you so.", said the Rabbi.
The executioner then siezed the Priest and ordered him to speak his mind before he died.
"I believe in the Holy Trinity", declared the Priest, "the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He will save me in my moment of need."
Once again, the executioner raised and released the blade, and once again, it dropped short of the Priest's neck.
"Another miracle.", muttered the crowd.
The executioner released the Priest and forced the Secular Humanist to the platform.
"So what have you got to say for yourself.", he asked, but the Secular Humanist simply stared at the terrible contraption, eyes glazed, slack-jawed, sweat dripping from his face.
The executioner poked him in the ribs and demanded a few words for the crowd.
"Aha!", said the Secular Humanist, "There's the problem. There's an obstruction in the gear assembly. Right there!"Posted by Major Major on 2005-11-12 07:34:42

Not that formidable, Kuya. If you just ignore the flame war between Rabbit and Natalie, the thread boils down to approximately twenty-three posts.
Getting back to the topic of the day:
Q: What do you get when you cross an atheist with a Jehovah's Witness?
A: Someone who knocks on doors for no apparent reason.Posted by Major Major on 2005-11-12 06:53:49

NataLIE, Such a graceful concession.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-11-12 05:24:19

Hey, not bad, Rabby. You finally found someone with some actual credentials in a field that is somewhat applicable to the subject at hand. And as predicted, you were eager to crow about him, even after repeatedly poo-pooing other professionals. Of course I understand it would be unfair for me to suspect that this guy has been "gotten to", or has other motivations. (because of the exemption.)
I must point out though that like Griffin, who he referenced along with the other usual suspects, he provides very little original thinking and relies on the same old repeated and nearly identical propaganda we've grown so familiar with. He did drop a brick, though. And he makes solar cookers.
How was it to actually read an account from the real news media? Must have startled you cuz you quickly retreated back to your comfort zone.
Was Barbara among the passengers?Posted by Natalie on 2005-11-12 03:38:16

In a 9,000-word article that Jones says will be published in the book "The Hidden History of 9/11," by Elsevier, Jones offers these arguments:
Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-12 00:39:55

Rabbit sincerely hopes this is the vinegar stroke for the Natty.
The Choir seems to have had quite a recruiting run of late nayy, and the following is kinda cool.

By Elaine Jarvik
Deseret Morning News
The physics of 9/11 Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-12 00:38:19

Maudlin Monkey
Rabbit felt it is a good day for Pina Colada in the sun. Saturday morning and people keep coming in the door, giving Rabbit money. Some take away boats, others are paying boats off for christmas, it is fun, collecting the money but the Pina Colada and peace pipe help pass the time in between. Mrs rabbit will be along soon to pillage Rabbit's pockets she has an instinct for these things.
Thanks Kuya, we don't take prisoners, it is true. We build these whopping great big threads sometimes too, just because we can.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-11 20:26:02

Sitting here in front of the computer, drinking a beer (excellent local craft/micro brewery), dinner in the oven.
In small print on the label of the beer bottle :
" drink locally .. think globally "
I like the idea of a group of friends stretched out across the world. All different but the same. All knowing others and knowing themselves.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-11-11 16:14:20

Luminous Beauty and anyone else who cares to, please email me :
braverdave@hotmail.com
I promise I am not a stalker and do not have cooties :)
Just want to discuss some things on a personal and off topic level sometimes.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-11-11 16:05:55

Luminous Beauty, what is NPR?Posted by David in Canada on 2005-11-11 10:25:33

I know about that pesky submit button. Forgot about the death bed question. Also pretty funny. I both hope and suspect the moment I cease recanting (i.e., learning something new that forces me to re-evaluate my level of understanding and depth of wonder in the world) is likely to be the moment I die. After that I rather suspect I'll be making a brand new set of mistakes.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-11-11 10:07:50

Rabbit, always works for me. Except that one time just above. I was getting ready to paste in the URL and it was like the submit button got clicked. Eager electrons. Thanks for sharing your results and the encouragement to bring the quiz to the others.
Luminous Beauty, I wondered the same thing about believing in Easter Bunny so I just answered as best I could. I think it was a poke at faith/belief systems. The recant on your death bed question was tricky too. I recant every day, sometimes several times a day. hee hee. Thanks for sharing the results.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-11-11 09:23:57

OK David, as I write this NPR is saying there might be more in common with the Dalai Lama and neuro-physicists than you might think. Not news to me, particularly, but an interesting moment of synchronicity. So I took your silly quiz and got some good chuckles out of it. Like wondering if I ever believed in the Easter Bunny. I was wondering who would admit to being even the tiniest bit gullible, when I thought, 'hey, I got roped into taking this silly quiz, am I gullible.' It was fun, and oh yeah, my results:
Spiritualism
Your ideals are mostly spiritual, but in an individualistic way. While spirituality is very important in your life, organized religion itself may not be for you. It is best for you to seek these things on your own terms.
80% spiritual.
80% reason-oriented.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-11-11 05:55:34

;-) God love the lot of yaPosted by Kuya on 2005-11-11 02:29:03

Dude! Formidable thread! You guys really are hardcore!Posted by Kuya on 2005-11-11 02:26:04

By the way, has Natty ever said thankyou for the HTML tips?
She was thanked for the Tinyurls when we finally sorted out the things about postings, and she was graciously offered some of the nice new fruit thereafter, the combination of which has made us all feel much cleverer.
But has there ever been an acknowledgement of the niceness of people, and Rabbits who so easily and generously shared of their bounty?
Just a little sniffy Rabbit remark.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-11 01:35:05

So Dave, does the HTML code writtend like this go OK, Rabbit got into trouble before somewhere trying to post that to someone and the electrons were thieving it.
Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-11 01:30:08

Rabbit cares KVK, thanks, it is interesting and a pattern is forming of how the results compare. This one is harder to predict than the Political compass, since mostly it is politics which is on display on these threads. Nevertheless the pattern is beggining to form, now he sees these three.
What will the Vampire be?Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-11 01:28:43

oops ... this one :
political compassPosted by David in Canada on 2005-11-10 22:44:49

Kaw Valley Kid - thanks for sharing the results
I hoped you would be one of the hardcores still visiting this thread. Did you ever take this one :
Posted by David in Canada on 2005-11-10 22:43:37

Here is what the quiz thought of me today,I might answer the questions differently,depending on my mood.
You fit in with:
Humanism
Your ideals mostly resemble that of a Humanist. Although you do not have a lot of faith, you are devoted to making this world better, in the short time that you have to live. Humanists do not generally believe in an afterlife, and therefore, are committed to making the world a better place for themselves and future generations.
30% scientific.
60% reason-oriented.
In case anyone cares...:-)Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on 2005-11-10 22:02:44

Natty who talks of unprotected steel buckling and twisting, is forgetting the steel in the WTC was fire proofed. There were some attempts to claim it was not, early on like other structural lies which were set to rights once the plans and the rest of the information was examined, this one was tossed out. the fact that the Spanish Windsor building did not have fireproofing was being rectified when the accident happened. The main thing from this incident to be gleaned is that after more than 24 hours of very hot fire, and a similar overall design the building did not collapse.
It is also only one example, there are plenty more and some are referred to in sources already given. The end is nigh for you attempt at a case, you never got even one block on the ground, you might as well pack it in. seriously.
In the event you still have need of more humiliation, and Rabbit is glad as always to oblige, but then you should get down to the serious stuff and stop playing with pebbles. The rocks have been identified, by Rabbit. he can list them, but will only rub your nose in it while doing so, so best to try showing you have some brains and powers of comprehension, and address the ROCKS.
HINT:
Rabbit post of 11:28 is a pretty fair sized boulder. But it is among peers. You Natalie are not my dear.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-10 20:43:42

Climb the Monkey Ladder please Natty, let us see where you end up.
Go forth and proselytise Dave, let your curiosity be your guide, sally forth and survey the site for the rest like the busy Monkey does best. Rabbit is suddenly quite interested in the results of this quizzy thing. It is simple and kind of cute but it will do for a show, push it and let us see how it goes.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-10 20:33:57

Curious Monkey
You like the little qyuizzy things don't you. Have you seen Rabbit's Billy Cart Story on another thread?
Oh yes
Rabbit is placed thus on this monkey ladder:
SpiritualismYour ideals are mostly spiritual, but in an individualistic way. While spirituality is very important in your life, organized religion itself may not be for you. It is best for you to seek these things on your own terms.
80% spiritual.
60% reason-oriented.
Well what does one expect for an Gnostic Rabbit.
......................................Shiny Rabbit...................................^^...........................Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-10 20:28:31

Do you think picking apart the details of the two buildings comparisons is going to help the bigger picture?
If the structural case for the WTC collapses was sound, has it not occurred to Natty that four years down the track, these theories would be going the way of several others which have come along and been discredited?. Sure you still atrribute some of those theories to us, the redundancy of some of your posts has been in attending to things nobody here was claiming. The fact is that the theory of explosive demolition of the buildings has been the most consistently growing cause celebre. Not just more and more ordinary people, but most crucially as you recognise, more and more experts and influential people.
The official case for the buildings collapse always was shaky, and the best that can be said of it is it is collapsing more slowly than the WTCs. That it is collapsing can be witnessed by the size and growth rate of our Choir> as evdenced by many of the above sources and a few more which have just arrived into the world, which will be added shortly.
It is collapsing, and you can't make a case for The Junta withholding the evidence which would exonerate it in the face of mounting world hostility, distrust and the same from many of it's own citizens. WE the doubting and swelling multitudes are saying we believe they did it, and everything points to that, and the best they do to disprove it, is to send people like you out onto the internet to rattle the debate a bit. Now propaganda has its uses, sure, but if you have the EVIDENCE, a couple videos and a few recordings of Firefighters who were not on a secret Mission for Gods sake.
WHAT THE HELL IS SO SECRETIVE ABOUT THE RADIO COMMUNICATIONS BETWEN FIREMEN HELPING TO SAVE LIVES ON 911?
Why keep them secret when the result is about half of Americans are ready to believe their government committed and atrociously cynical mass murder on home soil?
AND What is so important to be kept secret on a privately owned video which shows a plane crashing into the PENTAGON, if that is all it shows?
Unless you can answer these questions Natalie, then you ducking the most important and damning TRUTH. If you even try to answer those questions, the ONLY conclusion is that you are a Government SHILL. There are no answers which will convince even a six year old.
Scene: Six year old kid sees Dad pick up something off the ground.
Kid: What was that?
Dad: Nothing
Kid: Behind your back
Dad: I'm holding nothing behind my back
Kid: Show me
.....
Kid: The other hand
Dad: No
Does the kid believe the father? Should he?Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-10 20:20:51

Natalie, the best you can muster is to raise a small possibility that the towers might have fallen from fire alone, do you not get it?
If we are generous and grant you this, which can only be done by taking the best of what you have posted and ignore the sources Rabbit has posted, and most all he has said, if we grant you it "could somehow in the realms of possibility, have happened three times in a row, on one day like this, then all that means is it is possible. It doesn't prove it did happen. Do you know what most destroys your case? The ONLY thing the government has to do to establish the credibility of their story which is losing ground daily, is to release what they have still got of the eveidenece they have witheld. There will be enough just in a few videos and some recorded converstions, to completely demolish the entire alternative theory crowd. There can only be ONE reason they would not do that, Natalie, and do you know what that is? ----------------------WE DO!Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-10 19:55:57

David's results :
You fit in with:
Taoism
Your ideals mostly resemble those of the Taoist faith. Spirituality is the most important thing in your life. You strive to live by all of your ideals, and live a very intellectually focused life.
50% spiritual.0% reason-oriented.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-11-10 19:41:01

Found this :
religious quiz
This is the God Squad thread and since only the hardcores are still reading these commments I have posted it here.
I have taken a similar quiz before. If anyone has another worth taking (not saying this one is) please share it.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-11-10 19:39:16

"A light structural element can heat up quickly and the resulting expansion can produce an outward bulging away from the slab edge which can create internal flues if it happens before the facade glazing breaks."
source
"The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building."
"The fire protection on the existing steelworks below the 17th floor had been completed at the time of fire except for the 9th and 15th floors. When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2). However, they did not cause any structural collapse. Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls. Nevertheless, structural fire analysis should be carried out before such a conclusion can be drawn." (Trustworthy Fire Engineers)
source
"In fact, comparisons between the Windsor tower and the WTC towers are limited because of the very different structures of these buildings. The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with columns consisting of box-beams and I-beams as much as three feet wide and of steel up to several inches thick. In contrast, the Windsor building was framed in steel-reinforced concrete, with columns of concrete reinforced by thin sections of rebar. The concrete pillars in the Windsor building are clearly visible in the photographs showing the intact core exposed by the collapsed facade. It is not clear what materials were used to frame the perimeter, but their apparent thinness indicates that the the core was the main load-bearing component of the building." (911better_but_still_in_denial_research)
source
Now, after reading all about the Windsor tower from a variety of sources, aside from the obvious conclusion you should draw, which is that unprotected steel buckles and collapses, are you prepared to admit that the article by Chris Bollyn that contained this:
"After 24 hours, however, the tower, which was a similar construction to the twin towers of the World Trade Center, remained standing."
should be put in the circular file?
And your last article is yet another example of someone we're suppose to take seriously yet who doesn't demonstrate either the knowledge or the honesty to point out the unique construction of the trade towers, as opposed to other conventional steel buildings.
One can only conclude that the author is either ignorant, or a propagandist. My hunch is both.Posted by Natalie on 2005-11-10 08:20:44

While it may be difficult to awaken everyone from their state-induced fog of fear, we are at a critical point in history which requires us to try. We truly must take an objective look at the facts and evidence surrounding 9-11.
While none of the many 9-11 researchers knows exactly what happened on that fateful day in September almost 3 years ago, any sensible person can easily spot dozens of inconsistencies in the official story that is being forced upon us.
And these inconsistencies are huge. They range from the apparent stand-down of our immense military arsenal (for over an hour and a half) to the small hole and lack of debris at the Pentagon. There was Bush's bizarre, uninterrupted photo op in a Florida elementary school, and then there is the matter of the remains of Flight 93 being scattered over eight miles of Pennsylvania farmland, a fact which suggests the plane may have been shot down. The official story seems wrong on all of these points.
But the focus of this article is on just one point: the odd collapse of the three buildings in the World Trade Center complex.
Dave Heller, who has degrees in physics and architecture, is a builder and engaged citizen in Berkeley, California.

Four Years Later-More Questions Than Answers On 9/11
By Stephen Simac
It's the fourth anniversary of the Attack on America and two official investigations into the events have been made public, more or less. The joint congressional hearings (see Coastal Post, Sept. 03) and the independent 9/11 commission (CP, Sept./ Oct. 04 ) have each issued reports that exonerated all government officials and agencies for their failure to prevent the attacks.
It's easy to understand why the joint inquiry backed off blaming anyone. During their investigation the members and their staff were interrogated using lie detectors by the FBI. This was after an NSA document was leaked, about a phone call by known terrorists that had not been translated until after the "big day." Senator McCain, a member complained about the FBI "compiling dossiers on people who are investigating" the agency.
Huge portions of their report were classified, including the whole chapter on Saudi Arabia involvement. The joint committee did find enough damaging evidence that a second investigation was held because of pressure from the families of the victims.
The 9/11 Commission was formed against the wishes of the Bush administration, then given only $3 million to work with at first. Clearances for the members were delayed until they had less than a year to finish. They did find documented warnings of terrorist plans to hijack airplanes and crash them into the Pentagon and the WTC towers. These warnings went back for years, increasing in intensity during the summer of 2001.
They found abject failures to follow protocol, to share vital information, to take action on actionable intelligence, to act in a timely manner, even suppression of investigations into the terrorists' cells. (see CP Sept. Oct. 2004).
Nevertheless, no one was held responsible by the independent commission. There was no buck to stop. No resignations, demotions, administrative warnings or public scolding have resulted from the official findings of the 9/11 commission. Documented, widespread incompetence and failures to act on their duties by numerous federal agencies and individuals and none at fault.
Some agents who had direct responsibility were actually promoted. All agencies involved have been given more funding and powers, after miserably failing with already gargantuan budgets and permissive regulations. The independent commission's recommendations for restructuring the intelligence community were enacted into law. This will cost hundreds of billions more over the next decades, but they chose not to blame anyone who had wasted trillions over decades spent on intelligence and defense.
"We're not interested in trying to assess blame, we do not consider that the commission's responsibility.," the vice chair admitted before they began hearings. The investigations and public hearings were carefully orchestrated to lay down a covering fire for the administration's explanations for the failures. Only a failure of imagination, autistic communication skills and developmental delay in connecting the dots were responsible. And no one could be blamed for this.

The choir is big and it is diverse.
What does Nat have? A Glee Club? A duo maybe?Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-09 19:12:14

The so called Investigation is given a very well researched treatement here, and if anyone wishes to claim the FEMA report is anything but shallow piss meant to cover a bigger stain, they had better be prepared to tackle "ALL" the issues on that site. That doesn't include the authors even, because it is in black and white. The report is there and so is a commentary with references all the way.
So Rabbit calls you Natty, get out of the ditch and spin a better spell my gel, that one didn't go so well. How do you explain 7 live Suicide Bombers Natty? since you have failed to give any cover to any other part of the elephant.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-09 18:29:30

Fat lot of good that does you anyway. The concrete Center is a trade site and it draws a comparison between the two in the way it does in an attempt to promote concrete. Hardly what one could call an impartial comment on the overall design similarities or differences. That is beside the point anyway because the statement refers only to the Interim NIST report which we have already proven relied on false design parameters, and is itself under a substantial clowd in every important respect. This is a typical way you mob of Clowns in the US JUNTA and it's ORGANS go about trying to pervert the truth, and too many of us are awake up for it to do any good anymore.
You feed some lies into the system via false reports. You then point to the reports in the media and elsewhere about those reports and even when the logic of your theories falls down you can still point to the false reports and claiming at least the facts are proven by them being thus reported.
How stupid do you think people are? Obviously you must think we are dumber than you, we're not. Your masters may hold the guns and curfews over us for a short while Natty, but sooner or later you lot will have to answer to the people,m we can flick you pricks of our collective back like a bug, when finally you annoy us enough.
Of course Rabbit could just answer the Natty's post by saying like she would, Who exactly has written this site? How can Rabbit see who the person is? How qualified he is, Where is his data referenced anywhere?, Beware of unsourced claims is a good motto. Well Natty Rabbit prefers to use his common sense and he can see that the site seems genuinely to be trying to sell concrete to industry. It revels in concret and that is all. It certainly does not include anything of use to the case as it does no more than refer to a report, which is full of inconsistencies, errors and omissions. You have long since lost the NIST report as anything of subsatnce so best you avoid it's use in future. You see it is the thing we are discrediting here. What a Daft girl Natty is.
There is also this however on the Concrete selling site, from England, about the Windsor Tower and it does contrast with the WTCs because they did have modern fire proofing despite an early attempt by NIST to claim otherwise.

The building was in the process of refurbishment and fireproofing to modern standards when the fire occurred; some fireproofing was being provided on the steel perimeter columns

Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-09 18:17:15

Nattys post isn't worthy of comment.
You are not making any case Natty. Rabbit will now start buring you in technical Proof, which is hardly necessary because for anyone who has read all above, the matter is closed. The following has already been posted but you need reminding obviously. The fact that there were some differences in structure, is certainly no more important than the fact the fire burned MUCH hotter for 26 hours.
AGAIN

On Feburary 13, 1965, real estate baron Lawrence Wien called reporters to his office to charge that the design of the Twin Towers was structurally unsound. Many suspected that his allegation was motivated by a desire to derail the planned World Trade Center skyscrapers to protect the value of his extensive holdings, which included the Empire State Building. In response to the charge, Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was designing the Twin Towers, fired back with a three-page telegram containing the following details. 5
THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OU BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-09 17:54:36

I don't know who Chris Bollyn is, apparently nobody does, but it would appear that even little ol' me has better investigative skills than he.
It didn't take more than three or four seconds to learn that the Madrid building fire actually strengthened the WTC collapse theory put forth by the nerds.
"Because of the height of the structure and the extent of the blaze, firefighters could only mount a containment operation and ensure that neighbouring buildings were protected. The fire eventually finished 26 hours later, leaving a complete burn-out above the fifth floor. The steel-glass faPosted by Natalie on 2005-11-09 08:52:50

Rabbit already knows what Natty will say to the last one.
She will start by wanting to know who Christopher Bollyn is, or she'll just say he is on drugs or something. Wasn't that what she said about Griffin...... on Drugs?
She's a sharp debater our Natty.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-09 01:11:36

SPANISH SKYSCRAPER FIRE RAISES
QUESTIONS ABOUT 9/11 COLLAPSESBy Christopher Bollyn
American Free Press
The fact that a Spanish skyscraper is still standing after an intense
fire consumed the steel and concrete tower for 24 hours provides real
world evidence that fire alone does not cause high-rise towers to
collapse.
As an intense fire consumed the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid's
business district, the press reports all began with the words "fear
of collapse." After 24 hours, however, the tower, which was a similar
construction to the twin towers of the World Trade Center, remained
standing.
The fact that an extremely severe fire did not cause the Spanish
steel and concrete tower to collapse raises serious questions about
the events of 9/11 and how they have been explained. Why did the
Windsor Building remain standing when similar towers in New York City
collapsed completely after being affected by much less intense fires
burning for considerably shorter periods of time?
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) sponsored engineers to
conduct the World Trade Center Building Performance Study (BPS) to
examine how the buildings of the WTC responded to the airplane
crashes and fires that allegedly caused the collapses of the twin
towers and WTC 7, a 47-story office building on the next block.
"Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of
fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings," the
BPS says in the chapter about the mysterious collapse of WTC 7, the
third tower to collapse on 9/11. WTC 7 was not hit by aircraft or
large pieces of debris and had only sporadic fires. At about 5:25
p.m., WTC 7, owned by Larry Silverstein, collapsed in what appeared
to be a controlled demolition.
It would be more accurate to say that no steel framed high-rise, like
WTC 7, has ever collapsed due to fire. The fact that the Windsor
Building is still standing is proof that fire alone does not cause
properly constructed steel and concrete towers to collapse.

Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-09 01:08:31

Lots of Rabbit words but Liars need help to bury themselves. There are hundreds of different references to the structure of the WTCs from before and since 911, Rabbit has used one, but he could have chosen more and there are of course the original WTC info sites still around. The only sites which call the structural integrity into question are those which have sprung up since 911 to try and spread a myth, which is hereby, debunked. They only do this by talking in generalities, and by misrepresenting the actual structure. If it seems too much to believe that your government could so blatantly lie and decieve, even to the extent of spreading false propaganda, that is too bad. The fact of this can be established merely by looking at the details and comparing them with the official lie.
It is not nice to realise our government has become a threat to our lives and our freedoms, but it would be worse not to know it.
If there was even a shadow of a case for the official lie, don't you think that a government shill, like Natty, she is the real deal folks, would try and make it? Instead of just pulling obvious avoidance and petty character assasinations of any and all who would witness against the lie.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-09 00:59:32

Now this directly brings your LIE into sharp relief. by the way all this has been posted above.

On Feburary 13, 1965, real estate baron Lawrence Wien called reporters to his office to charge that the design of the Twin Towers was structurally unsound. Many suspected that his allegation was motivated by a desire to derail the planned World Trade Center skyscrapers to protect the value of his extensive holdings, which included the Empire State Building. In response to the charge, Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was designing the Twin Towers, fired back with a three-page telegram containing the following details. 5
THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OU BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...
At the time the Twin Towers were built, the design approach of moving the support columns to the perimeter and the core, thereby creating large expanses of unobstructed floor space, was relatively new, and unique for a skyscraper. However, that approach is commonplace in contemporary skyscrapers.

Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-09 00:39:16

The following is so false that it should by its own logic disqualify Natty from being taken seriously since the issues it tries to present are already blown away earlier.

I donPosted by Rabbit on 2005-11-09 00:37:39

By the way Natty the fall time of even twelve or fourteen seconds is still impossibly fast for a collapse under gravity alone. However, though this is the only fact you seem willing to accept on that site, which is called cherrypicking by the way, it is not PROOF that the time wasn't closer to 10 seconds, and in fact the majority of claims are of ten seconds or less and they show how those times were arrived at. unlike the 911.Review, which simply makes the claim.
In truth Rabbit finds the 911.review to be less than the best referenced site. It also does oversimplify certain theories of others' in it's debunking. This is always something to be suspicious of. If someone needs to misrepresnt what another says in a debunking, much klike you often do Natalie, then you show only that you are misinformed and thus damages any other claims you make. Making a mistake, especially in the area of theory is quite forgiveable.
Deliberate lies, such as most of the official story has proven to be, is another matter altogether. Now whatever did happen on 911, it could not have happened without inside complicity. The WTCs did not fall down because of a couple of airliners and a bit of jet fuel, and the list of alleged hijackers is false, at least for seven of them.
Those things are facts. They mean the offiical story is a big fat lie and the fact that you struggle to defend it by avoiding reasonable debate on the IMPORTANT issues, shows you to be complicit in the lie.
A government propagandist has no business lecturing informed and decent people on honesty or reason.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-09 00:27:00

What are you now going on about you ignorant cow?
Why don't you look at the facts and tell us what is wrong with whatever Jon Carlson has said. As for who he is, does it matter? Frankly Rabbit finds your innuendos so boring. He is not seeming to write everything, he wrote that article and he may have written something else we have posted. SO what? So bloody what?
you have a lot more important issues to address, before going into more character attcks on obscure people. The ZOGBY poll is good isn't it Natty? Rabbit bets on that one year old poll alone that you are amongst a minority these days. you have the most corrupt and vicious governmnet on Earth Natty and it is not even an exageration to say so. You cannot continue to say they are above all suspicion when they have ignored so much crucial evidence and done so much to cover up the truth of what happened.
It just defies logic. you keep appealing to logic and reason, when the only illogical and unreasonable viewpoint is the one which accepts the TOTALLY discredited official lie.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-09 00:14:35

No Natty, you are wrong and have been shown to be already. The structures were not unique, they were of a standard type of construction, although there was an attempt by Fema to pretend they were missing certain struictural components early on. This was after the eveidence had been removed from the scene, and before the buildings plans became available. Thus the original structure was shown and it was not what the coverup report claimed. the engineers claims have all been dealt with above. You are pulling your claasic number of raising small pointeless objections, losing every single point along the way, and then pretending you've achieved some great feat of debating. You have failed as always to come across as anything but a desperate SHILL for the official lie. How irrational can you get than to ignore physics, witnesses, one's own eyes and all the history of building fires and demolitions and still cling to a story which even a year ago didn't wash with the most gullible people on earth. A story which includes a series of outright lies about what was known and what was done on the day. A story which ignored an entire third building collapse which had no plane crash. A story which lists nineteen men as suicide bombers, even after seven of them turn up alive and well.
You need to moderate your ideas a bit Natty you are coming across as a complete nutcase. Rabbit never knew and ANTI-government conspiracy theorist with as much craziness in their ideas. You are a lunatic, Natty, the above details are enough to prove that anybody who believes in the official story can only do so by ignoring all the facts and a huge amount of witnesses and whistleblowing evidence even. You are suggesting a far greater conspiracy than anything we are Natty, and what do we stand to gain with our great conspiracy?Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-09 00:06:37

Now Natty the foot shooting Batty, has asked about polls. Athough she tried to put a spin on it having to do with explosives........... nobody claimed any such thing........there are plenty of polls about showing the distrust of even Americans, (Gullible creatures) for the official LIE.
Zogby, 2004

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-08 23:20:30

"But either you take the site seriously or you donPosted by Natalie on 2005-11-08 22:58:26

Natty hates Mr Griffin so much, she should be made to read another of his very excellent speeches. This one is well referenced too, Rabbit would be interested in any criticism of what he says, rather than Nat claiming he is on drugs. Somehow that just doesn't cut it .
David Ray Griffin: 9/11 and the American EmpirePosted by Rabbit on 2005-11-08 22:48:57

As a matter of fact Rabbit finds the site to be somewhat questionable in it's logic, it seems more into debunking on it's own say so, and there are a lot of leaps of faith. If anything it said conflicted with anything else Rabbit already trusted, he would be forced to look with less favour upon it, it doesn't even make a good case for the things it claims to support which rabbit finds interesting.
Point is Natty, the buildings were brought down with explosives no matter how you look at it. Physics, history, witnesses, visual evidence. Whistleblowers and obvious disinfo projects such as you just to top off the obvious culpability.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-08 21:29:01

Lip service to the core facts of the attack is sometimes used in dissembling sites to establish bona fides within segments of the 9/11 Truth Movement. For example, Victor Thorn, on the WingTV website, writes in "9-11 Bottom Line: Explosives in the WTC":
As the 9-11 Truth Movement surges forward and attempts to determine who the guilty parties actually are, we likewise need to step-back for a moment and focus on what constitutes the crux of this matter. In other words, we’ve been expending so much energy on peripheral issues that we’re losing sight of the most damning act of all the explosive demolition of the World Trade Center towers and WTC7. Now this isn't saying that the war games, our military stand-down, Flight 93, or the absence of a Boeing 757 at the Pentagon are unimportant; but in the end, none of these areas of study hold the potential to prove that our government was directly involved in the planning, execution, and cover-up of 9-11 as does the deliberate destruction of the twin towers. We shouldn’t be mamby-pambying around any longer with facilitation, negligence, or incompetence; we should be going straight for the throat by proving that these provocateurs engaged in a planned mass murder by placing bombs in these buildings

Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-08 21:24:00

Despite your innuendos to the contrary the site doesn't list any of Rabbit's trusted sources and he keeps telling you, Rense just disseminates news, via the original sites mostly, not biased except the in house articles. Which is normal.
The other site you mention is however listed by 911 review as DISINFO. Your bread and butter Natty.

Dissembling Websites
We show that the September 11, 2001 attack was a carefully engineered inside job similar to previous attacks such as the Oklahoma City bombing. In the aftermath of this attack, as in previous cases, a community of skeptics worked to expose the fraudulence of the official story. However, by 2001, the World Wide Web had become established as one of the principal modes of communication. It immediately became the main arena for the information wars surrounding the attack.
Given how much was invested in the success of the attack, it is only reasonable to expect that elaborate deceptions would be crafted to confuse and discredit the skeptics. A raft of websites have popped up since the attack promoting theories ranging from patantly absurd to subtle hoaxes. In some cases websites that had established reputations before the attack were used to inject nonsense into the discourse of 9/11 skeptics.
A case in point is 911review.org, which was originally rolled out in late 2003, just as 911Research.wtc7.net was coming into prominence. Our analysis of that site finds that it has the effect of discrediting skepticism of the official account of the attack, whether by design or incompetence.
9/11 Review REVIEWED
Another example was Physics911.net (originally Physics911.org) also rolled out in late 2003, with the ostensible goal of providing a Scientific Panel for the Investigation of Nine-Eleven (SPINE). Both 911Review.org and Physics911.net promoted hoaxes like the Pod-Plane and pushed implausible science-fiction scenarios like Operation Pearl.
Numerous other sites serving to discredit serious analysis of 9/11/01 lack the sophistication of 911review.org and Physics911.net. Some, such as letsroll911.org, are almost entirely devoted to amplifying the idea, supported by no evidence, that missiles were used in the attack on the Twin Towers. OilEmpire.us was the first site to provide a complete rundown on such sites in mid-2004 -- a time when several new such sites sprang up.
e x c e r p t
title: Bogus 9/11 websites Muddying the waters with easily disproved phony claims
authors: Mark Robinowitz
[T]he 9/11 truth movement has been having long overdue successes in shifting public consciousness many more people now understand that 9/11 was not a surprise attack. This is probably why bogus websites and fake films with easily disproved material have been developed, which distract from the best evidence of complicity. These websites promote the idea that blurry photos with illogical and supported claims should be the basis for 9/11 truth outreach efforts, instead of the issues surrounding the failure of the Air Force to intercept the hijacked planes[.]
site: oilempire.us page: oilempire.us/bogus.html

..............morePosted by Rabbit on 2005-11-08 21:23:06

Natalie the 911 review does not attack Rodriguez' story, but more the way in which it is being handled legally. The thing to remember is that we already know the story of Rodriguez it was reported in enough detail from early on and has been consistent in that it allows for no doubt about there having been explosions in the building before the plane hit, someone was injured in it and there are more than a dozen random witnesses. The legal case may well be being mishadled, and it is not too hard to imagine that could be deliberate. As 911 Review says.

If websites can be created to sabotage 9/11 truth exposure by inserting discrediting memes, couldn't a similar tactic be used in litigation? There have been accusations that lawsuits on behalf of 9/11 victims are designed to obstruct rather than elicit justice. One can imagine that a lawsuit could be designed to fail, and thereby discourage and foreclose subsequent legal action on behalf of the victims. However, it could be difficult to distinguish between intentional sabotage and mere incompetence in an unsuccessful lawsuit.
Here we examine three lawsuits filed behalf of victims which have serious flaws -- flaws that could do more to damage the cause of 9/11 Truth exposure than help it.
Philip Berg's Lawsuit on Behalf of Ellen Mariani
Stanley Hilton's Lawsuit on Behalf of Able Ashes
Philip Berg's Lawsuit on Behalf of William Rodriguez

The Witness report is still what it is, you read it above.
The 911 Review site has been wrong occasionally and it is an extremely conservative site as it happens.
But either you take the site seriously or you don't natty. You accept the site is telling the truth based on facts, then you must explain what facts they have misunderstood to arrive at the following conclusion.

That the Twin Towers and Building 7 were destroyed through controlled demolition is immediately obvious from the fact that all three buildings fell straight down, maintaining symmetry about their vertical axes as they plunged at nearly free-fall rates.

Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-08 21:16:14

Here is a little more jocularity :
Three Proofs that Jesus was Jewish :
He went into his father's business.
He lived at home until the age of 33.
He thought his mother was a virgin, and his mother thought he was God.
click here for morePosted by David in Canada on 2005-11-08 21:00:25

Rabbit is mostly in agreeance with 911.Review it is he who first posted the link Natty the Lying Batty. It doesn't disparage any particular source or issue Rabbit believs in, it supports it, stupid girl. As for the other one, it said nothing, it merely attacked sites, and as said, Rabbit is aware form his own readings the criticism of some of those sites was right off the mark, had nothing to do with reality on that site, that is common tactic of Government propaganda. Of course you would think your games are just soo convincing and NOBODY could possibly doubt you are genuine and open minded and honest. If you knew how you came across to us you wouldn't want to do it to yourself. besiders which it is us who are using you to propound the very well referenced and convincing argumenst against the official lie. If your lie theory doesn stand up to facts, it doesn't Natty. No amount of repitition or screeching or petty character attacks are going to change something as big as this. You are labouring as Rabbit said to hide a Pink Elephant in the living room. It isn't working. How was it you accounted for the seven LIVE SUICIDE BOMBERS NATTY?
William Rodriguez and twenty people have not formed a cabal within minutes of the collapse of those buildings to bring discredit on the government. theyc ame forward with their stories right from the start. They were ignored, officially ignored and an obvious conspiracy enacted to keep a lid on their story. WELL IT HASN'T WORKED. If we are the choir, Natty we are one hell of a big and growing one. OUR combined voices will utterly drown your lies out and will replace them with a genuine effort to find the truth and BRING THE PERPETRATORS TO JUSTICE!
Especially the mongrels who ordered and allowed it to happen.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-08 20:43:25

Luminous Beauty,
You can find a reference to the Nietzsche quote here :
Nietzsche : ReligionPosted by David in Canada on 2005-11-08 20:09:03

Turd,
Yes. Your comment was worthwhile and I apologize for my disparaging remark.
Any other jokes? I like to laugh.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-11-08 19:50:46

i thought my joke was pretty worthwhile. I was surprised you got it.Posted by turdburgler on 2005-11-08 19:34:27

"How does that help your cause Nat?"
I'm actually trying to help your cause, Rabbit. If you insist on holding on to your demolition fantasy, at least refine your argument so you might have a chance of trying to convince someone beyond the choir.
That is what 911review is saying to Philip Berg and William Rodriguez.
911review and oilempire (they link to each other) appear to at least be half-way reasonable in what they buy into. (I think they're still in outer-space somewhere) I would suggest putting a little more faith in them, and less in the sources that they disparage.
Looking forward to that trial...I hope it's televised!!Posted by Natalie on 2005-11-08 19:05:45

Yes, Jesus was a Palestinian Jew.
Do you have anything worthwhile to contribute Turd?Posted by David in Canada on 2005-11-08 16:34:39

A Nazarene, actually. According to extant accounts. Some believe he was an Alien.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-11-08 16:21:47

Wasn't jesus jewish?Posted by turdburgler on 2005-11-08 16:09:14

Nietzsche said that David? Curious. That's probably what unconsciously triggered my response when my frosh world history prof declared there had never been a single true Christian in all of history. I leapt up and said, "Well sir, perhaps One, but we all know what happened to Him."
That made me a truly undeserving hero to all the Christians on campus for a week or so.
I guess I've always had a smart mouth. I knew some of it came from reading Nietzche in High School.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-11-08 15:57:06

Friedrich Nietzsche also said :
" there was only one true Christian, and he died on the cross. " Posted by David in Canada on 2005-11-08 15:04:20

Get hip, Turdbooger. 600 comments that you haven't read.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-11-08 08:03:03

jesus 600+ comments...
Nitzche already declared that god was dead years ago.
Get with it people.Posted by turdburgler on 2005-11-08 03:20:00

It is hard to believe you would repost the link of errors which rabbit has already highlighted and which you refer to now it is convenient as you try to use something out of context. So Rabbit shall stop your cherry picking and let's look at the whole artcile, which is of course referenced on many points raised, on the site, Nat had kindly re linked above.

Parade of Errors
On September 11, 2001 four jetliners, the Pentagon, and Manhattan were struck in a complex and coordinated military operation involving numerous individual assaults. A critical view of the timeline and targeting of the attack undermines the official story that bands of Islamic terrorists armed only with primitive weapons executed the attack, and that the deadly collapses that followed were merely engineering failures.
Consequently a growing number of skeptics of the official account of the attack have raised questions and demonstrated that key assertions of the official story are impossible.
However, skeptics have faced an array of challenges in their attempts to convince others of the bankruptcy of the official story, not the least of which are their own failures to correctly interpret evidence of the attack and present a unified theory. It appears that confusing and dividing the skeptics was an important objective in the planning and follow-up of the attack. This was accomplished both at the front end, by the way the attack was structured, and at the back end, by the insertion of disinformation.
The idea that Flights 11 and 175 did not hit the North and South Towers illustrates how the front-end and back-end techniques work together to divide and discredit the skeptics. Many skeptics point to the absence of public evidence that proves Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, and apparent evidence to the contrary, such as an absence of much recognizable debris from a 757 in photographs of the site, and a pattern of damage that seemed to be incommensurate with the impact of 757. In the absence of evidence theories flourished that something other than a jetliner crashed at the Pentagon, despite numerous eyewitness accounts supporting the crash of a jetliner. The Pentagon 'no-plane' theories helped to seed even more incredible theories that the Twin Towers were hit, not by jetliners, but by some other objects -- despite considerable evidence that the impacts were, in fact, of Flights 11 and 175. The counterintuitive appearance of jetliners entering the towers would help to fuel these theories. After the attack "investigative reports" from neutral countries such as Spain and Canada would feed the idea that those crashes did not involve Boeing 767s at all, but rather the planes had been swapped or the crashes were simulated by various means. These dead-end theories would serve to discredit skeptics, soak up large amounts of their time, and divert attention from the core fraud of the attack --the Big Lie that the Twin Towers collapsed due to impacts and fires.
Errors such as these litter websites and books by sincere researchers attempting to discover the truth behind the attack. One of the goals of 911review.com is to highlight these errors and improve the quality of analysis in the community of skeptics.

How does that help your cause Nat?Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-08 01:50:02

Wow are you a hopeful one. Twenty people, supported by various forms of evidence much of which is outlined on this thread, claim to have heard, felt and experienced exlosions before and after the plane hit. A bunch of government sponsored engineers trying to use various weird ways of explaning, how such a previously unknown event managed to happen not once but three times in one place on the same day. How do you like the odds? You are of course someone who thinks nuclear waste is no worse than lead, so anything is possible. Of course Rabbit knows you must really know how hopeless is your cause, you just have to keep up the pretense Natty, or they won't pay you.
But don't worry, it is being brought on, and it is being brought on from more than one direction too. How long do you think this Junta can stay standing against it's current failure on all fronts? Another year? Two? Maybe three but Rabbit doubts they can hold it together any longer than another two, before they'll have to drop the disguise and fire up the ovens. By then even idiots like most of the morons who still dream on will be awake and angry.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-08 01:16:20

When a known false info site like which includeds claims about certain sites to be false, and I see my trusted sites among those it lists as untrustworthy? Actually Natalie Rabbit is pleased to see that those sites are under attack, especially as he knows the perpetrators had to resort to false claims about those sites to be able to criticise them. You do use soem garbage. taht link is no more than an attck piece. It uses nothing more substantial than your type of innuendo and starwman arguments. Crap in other words. Where is something factual? It cleverly attacks one or two other disinfo sites, like itself, but that doesn't change anything. we already know which of the supposed truth sites are really yours.
Those things which you claim are being denied by 911.review, are not things which Rabbit has tried to claim anywhere, you are just repeating your earlier lies when you tried to put words in my mouth, strawman arguments, by cherrypicking bits and pieces around the periphery of sites which were posted for other specific purposes. you have attributed some of the claims being debunked on that link, but they were not, so, that is what is called a foul, Natty.
The other thing to be rememeber is that certain theories on this site may be wrong, it is but one of many, and since the Government has hidden the evidence and is hindering all investigations, it is hard to sort out all the theories and several of even the more extreme ones may yet be true, who is to know while the EVIDENCE is being withheld?
As for the last part of your post, all it shows is that you have either not read the full account by Rodriguez, including the number of other witnesses, or you are ignoring it. There was not lots of Jet fuel down elevators as we've already shown that it was almost all burnt up in the explosion. It was one of thsoe facts which was ignored by you as being unassailable, like most of the other important things. as for the things which might have been noticed in the setting up of the explosives, you are right, and there is indeed evidence of this. Among other interesting things, the BOMB Sniffer dogs were removed from the WTC's a week or so before 911. One of the later identified "hijackers" was also seen in the building, apparently measuring and mapping the building. Evidence which is on record and was ignored by the 911 commission, of course.
There is more, Natty much much more than you can ever hope to discredit, even if you had a single useful fact which you don't. Get on with the dirty attacks of Rodriguez, because it's all you have. His story completely F*CKS yours. So either he and his twenty odd witnesses are lying, or your Blood Drenched Government is lying, telling the biggest lie of modern times and you are helping them do it. You are also helping spread Depleted Uranium all over the planet. You are the original She devil, incarnation of Evil. You are besmirching the memory of thsoe three thousand who you otherwise use as justification for killing 150,000. You are doing this because what you are doing, no matter what you believe, you are trying to stop the truth being found, whatever it might be. The truth is oibviously not known, and you are detenrmined it will not be. You are Beezlebub. The original figurehead for Babylon the Great W.
The witnesses will be speaking the truth, they will be doing so separately and they will be supported by much much more evidence as it must be obvious to any fool. NO Parade of structural engineers who have nothing but theory to work with anyway, will be able to discredit that you stupid fool. There is no way that proving the building might possibly have fallen down by itself, if the witnesses show it did not!Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-08 01:07:55

Nobody said anything about polls and demolition Nasty Natty, we were talking about "NOT believing" the official lie. Those polls are referred to several times above and Rabbit will re-post them in his own time, they are more dissembling by a Liar, you. Your points of vuiew are official propaganda and obviously so. you have avoided reasonable deabte you go round and round with snarky personal attacks, avoidance of issues and false screeching about how badly done by you are. The thread stands and so do otyhers which show you are not even a real person in the sense that you came onto this site pretending to be someone you were not. You have shown yourself to be completely devoted to maintaining the official line, beyond what is normal even for trolls and morons, your tactics are so transparent and repulsive that no one who has met you has called you anything diferrent.
You refer disparagingly to Reynolds now and you will do it over and over to anyone who doesn't tow the official line, why is it any surprise. You can't dispute what they say so you attack the person.
You can't dispute what they say so you attack the person and it is obvious. Just because you don't have ANY credible independant witnesses for the official lie, and just because half the details of the offiical lie are patently false, don't assume that the rest of the doubting world is as poverty stricken in the area of logic and evidence as you.

You can't dispute what they say so you attack the person

I have not found out that Reynolds is buying into anything like you suggest. that is just more of your feeble innuendo.
You are referring to a comment by someone, which was a throwaway one, and which does not even refer specifically to the theories. As I pointed out the author probably was misunderstanding and taking something out of context, for whilst Rabbit hasn't looked at Reynolds beliefs, his professional opinion is no less for any "beliefs" especially as if they are the ones I am thinking of there is no way they can be called impossible. So stop with the innuendo you dishonest toad of a person. So far you've sold your soul and every grain of credibility for your assigned cause, and despite your hollow claims of anything else, you have FAILED spectacularly to introduce any credibility to a discredited official lie, and you have failed to damage any alternative theories about what happened which have been accepted as probable by Rabbit and others. It is also obvious that you disapear like you do when there gets to be too many against you, and come back after you hope they have all gone away. You are such a fraud, Natty.
You don't want to attack William Rodriguez but you will, and calling him Bill, which has not been done before by any source does not make you seem any less ridiculous. You must share the same image consultant as Dubya.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-08 00:40:46

I don't want to attack Bill Rodriguez. It appears that he was quite heroic on 9/11 and continues to try to help other victims of the attack. I can't explain why all the reporters and/or editors chose to clip out his comments about explosions, if he did indeed testify to that effect from day one as he maintains currently. It does appear that he has gained a new following, a new set of admirers to take the place of likely a fading spotlight that shone simply on his heroism. His lawyer, Philip Berg, actually filed a lawsuit demanding that Supreme Court justices be disbarred for siding with Bush in 2000. This is Kookville central. This kind of goofiness has not gone unnoticed by the good, but still in major denial folks at 911review.com:
disinfo/lawsuits
In fact, these good but still in major denial folks seem to have quite a few issues with a lot of what you've introduced here in past posts:
Errors
And so do these good but still in major denial folks:
Bogus
You may be disappointed to see many of your most trusted sources listed. Rense, Jones, Serendipity (the LSD guy), etc, etc.
So people heard explosions. That's really not too suprising, what with jet fuel fires coursing through the building's elevators:
Elevator shafts worked like chimneys, funneling unbearable smoke to floors above the crashes. The shafts also channeled burning jet fuel throughout both towers. Fire moved not only up and down but also side to side, from shaft to shaft, unleashing explosions in elevator lobbies and in restrooms next to the shafts.(link)
I can't explain how the brave janitor is able to interpret the progression and direction of the explosions he heard and felt as being the product of a deliberate demolition, and not simply because of the crash of the planes and the sub-explosions that no doubt resulted. I don't believe anyone has made any claims that might actually prove something, like for instance seeing someone laying blasting wire, or someone coming forward and admitting that he did, or someone among the thousands that picked through the debris bucket by bucket finding some.
I suspect this lawsuit will be thrown out of court, or more likely laughed out. I hope I'm wrong, though. I hope it's televised so I can see how a few disgruntled Bush-haters with no technical expertise stand up against a parade of structural engineers, including some of the same ones that designed and built the towers, and other misc. genuine experts in the fields that apply. That would be priceless.
In other words.......please...... bring it on!!Posted by Natalie on 2005-11-07 21:54:56

"Natalie the actual Facts Rabbit is not going to play your personal attack Shill games anymore"MY personal attack shill game? MY game? If you're suggesting that I'm somehow not allowed to critique what you put forth, or question the credibility, credentials and reliability of your sources, I would wonder what makes it taboo for me and perfectly fine for you. Is there some kind of ....hypocricy exemption.....I'm unaware of?
The game of "SHILL" is your invention. You introduced the term, and insist on keeping it alive through thick and thin. Please tell me what the difference is between me arguing one POV, and trusting a certain set of sources, and you promoting another POV put forth by a separate set of sources. Why am I called a "Shill", while you somehow remain immune to the label? I would suggest that you either offer a reasonable explanation, or abandon the term.
"There is an American Poll, it has been posted already among the many you ignored."
Please repost the link to this American Poll that asks specifically about deliberate demolition. I apparently missed it. Obviously, it can't be an "Internet poll". To be meaningful it must be scientific.
"That Texas A&M link tells us nothing of importance Natalie.Posted by Natalie on 2005-11-07 21:53:13

Natty is gone walkabout, as she does when the going gets tough.. When the going gets tough, the tough get lost.
Come back Natty we want the "official" response to Rodriguez, everybody is dying to hear the government response. Or are you waiting for an assassination to make the problem go away? that is what Rabbit fears.
Mr Rodriguez has got to be the most seriously threatened species on the planet, may God go with him.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-07 02:00:36

Morgan Reynolds has been critically examined it seems and while some other of his ideas, which may be being treated out of context anyway, are challenged the fact of his credibility, expertise and position are not.
This by Jim Hoffman and it includes the rebuttal and lots of links for anyone who wants to look closer. The essential point is Reynolds' qualification to say what he says.
The article Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse? published on the libertarian-oriented website LewRockwell.com, has garnered considerable attention. It makes the case for the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 with much the same eloquence as David Ray Griffin, whom it cites. Its author, Morgan Reynolds, brings unprecedented credentials to the community of skeptics of the official story: He is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and former chief economist for the US Labor Department during 2001-2002.
Reynolds provides an excellent summary of evidence for the controlled demolition of the WTC skyscrapers. However, he also devotes about a third of his article to supporting the dubious idea that neither the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, nor the field in Shanksville, PA were the sites of the crashes of the jetliners commandeered on 9/11/01. His article thus weds the thesis of controlled demolition of the skyscrapers with the denial that Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 crashed where reported. This is unfortunate because it functions to discredit the case for demolition by associating it with ideas that lack scientific merit, are easily debunked, and are inherently offensive to the victims of the attack -- especially the survivors of the passengers and crews of the crashed flights.
The role of disinformation in undermining the exposure of the facts of the 9/11 attack -- the subject of the information warfare section of 911Review.com -- is appreciated by few in the 911 Truth Movement itself. Indeed most sincere researchers of the attack have been fooled, at least temporarily, by some of the many hoaxes that have been promoted under the guise of truth exposure. Reynolds, a relative newcomer to the skepticism of the basic tenets of the official story, is likely no exception. I can imagine several reasons he might give the no-jetliners theories so much credence.
Enough of that Red-herring Nat the Bad Bat and do the Rodriguez character assasination if that is all you have left.
WITNESS time.
The final bell, the real matter of Personal attack is when it comes to WITNESSES. The other personal attacks Nat makes are of little meaning in the overall picture, but now the claws must be sharp. So this should be Milk and honey for Natalie.
Here she comes........Swooping in ..........Blood dripping from her fangs, fresh from a kill. Probably feeding off some fresh War Dead.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-04 20:43:36

GO here
That is a great site, lots of quotes from experts and exactly the sort of Pyrotechnics Rabbit was talking about.
Say one idiotic thing Natty and Rabbit will mention the name of the company........you know who.......and post lots of quotes from the site. For now you can just hope that others donPosted by Rabbit on 2005-11-04 19:53:41

here is the key and it is what Natty is all about.
(in) Puerto Rico and all the other Latin American countries, I have been allowed to tell my story uncensored. But here, I canPosted by Rabbit on 2005-11-04 18:58:37

William Rodriguez' Story
How will the SHILL deal with this guy? Attack his character? Attack the sites used so far, (Rabbit has collected dozens of references to Rodriguez' story from the days after the 911 attacks until recently, just in case Natty doesn't like Arctic Beacon or that lady reporter from before.
...since he was late, Rodriguez found himself checking into work in an office on sub-level 1 when the north tower was hit, seemingly out of harms way. However, the sound and concussion of a massive explosion in the sub-levels right below his feet changed that.
"When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking," said Rodriguez, who was huddled together with at least 14 other people in the office.
Rodriguez said Anthony Saltamachia, supervisor for the American Maintenance Co., was one of the people in the room who stands ready to verify his story.
"Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above," said Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion."
But before Rodriguez had time to think, co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"
David had been in front of a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries.
"He was burned terribly," said Rodriguez. "The skin was hanging off his hands and arms. His injuries couldnPosted by Rabbit on 2005-11-04 18:55:12

The following site includes a good roundup of Witnesses to the explosions in the World Trade Centers, as well as some simple logic. What can you attack this guy for Batty Natty?
William ThomasWilliam Rodriguez Just a report, from a reporter, to show he is real.
By Greg Szymanski
What happened to William Rodriguez the morning of 9/11 is a miracle. What happened to his story after-the-fact is a tragedy.
But with miracles and tragedies comes truth. And truth is exactly what Rodriguez brings to the whole mystery surrounding 9/11.
Declared a hero for saving numerous lives at Ground Zero, he was the janitor on duty the morning of 9/11 who heard and felt explosions rock the basement sub-levels of the north tower just seconds before the jetliner struck the top floors.
He not only claims he felt explosions coming from below the first sub-level while working in the basement, he says the walls were cracking around him and he pulled a man to safety by the name of Felipe David, who was severely burned from the basement explosions.
All these events occurred only seconds before and during the jetliner strike above. And through it all, he now asks a simple question everybody should be asking? How could a jetliner hit 90 floors above and burn a manPosted by Rabbit on 2005-11-04 18:49:12

The Collapse time link you provided is called a Disinfo site, it is not not factually accurate. More about it shortly. It is a government sponsored site and set up specifically for the use of SHILLS like Natalie. The collapses have been given coverage and there is no doubt about them. They are visible clearly in REAL time on many copies of videos. You are sprteading red-herrings and that is all. The issue is covered above for any who wish to check.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-04 17:13:23

That Texas A&M link tells us nothing of importance Natalie. Why post it? There is no actual statement of import challenged by trhis and even if Reynold said he had an officem which is not indicated, so what? Sorry Nat, the letter, which Rabbit shall take at face value, it may be false, or only one opinion, but Rabbit doesn't care. It doesn't change anything, and the conclusion of the letter is not even scientific. It is the sort of emotional garbage you thrive on. Actually I want more proof that the persona nd letter you just posted is who he says he is. That was not the letter of an educated or scientific mind. It also seemed to be written under coercion, from the look of that last line. So now it's your turn. Reynolds didn't claim anything wrong which I can see, but I don't trust that letter you just posted anyway.
Anyway Natty what about the ex German defence minister? Want to put some dirt on him, knock yourself out.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-04 17:10:04

Natalie the actual Facts Rabbit is not going to play your personal attack Shill games anymore, because it is only Dissemling. You don't have an moral stance from which to preach to others. You are the most morally corrupt person on this site, and we have the history to prove it. A professional liar is no good without a good lie, so you have to stick to Avoidance which isn't going down. You have been allowed to swriggle a bit up to now, Rabbit has indulged your petty points, none of which contribute to anything even if you had anything. Every examination of your petty points usually yeilded an even stronger case that the offial lie is kaput. The best result any of your queries could give is a neutral result. You need more than that. You will not be indulged anymore. You will answer the issues raised in order of Priority. That means HOW SIGNIFICANT the issue is.
There is an American Poll, it has been posted already among the many you ignored.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-04 17:03:17

You are so right, Rabbit. I am a beast. Check out my author number for confirmation.
Gosh, I thought you'd be in a little better mood, what with getting a new computer and all. Being an equal opportunity consumer, I patronize the good liberals at Apple, finding that their operating system provides very near total immunity from such worrisome things as viruses, worms, spyware, adware and outside hacking, even from "In These Times". But that's another topic.
You realize, of course, that if your case actually gets to trial, all the WITNESSES you've been talking about are going to have to stand up to intense scrutiny. The mere pittance that I am able to dig up is microscopic compared to what will be discovered by professional researchers. Instead of spewing inacurate albeit entertaining insults at me, I would suggest that you might actually THANK me for giving you a small preview of what to expect if the time comes that your theories actually have their day in court.
I know it doesn't matter, because even if I were to discredit ALL of your sources and witnesses, (I know, I haven't touched them...evidenced by your calm and polite reactions) the World Trade Center was STILL intentionally destroyed by the American Government. I've come to realize that this is a faith, a religion, an unshakable fundamental belief among those such as yourself, and to expect that you would see otherwise would be like asking Pat Roberson to become an athiest.
Even though it doesn't matter, here is the letter of support Mr. Reynolds recieved from his friends at the University:
Texas A&M
So it looks like the report:
"If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling." Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7".
....might be a little suspect considering Reynolds apparently doesn't have an office at Texas A&M. I would suggest that someone bragging about an impressive office that he doesn't really have is an indicator of someone prone to further misrepresentations or shall we say creative thinking.
Now we know that many people think that there's things about 9/11 that are suspicious, and certainly even I have questions about some aspects, as many people do after any extraordinary event.....JFK assassination, attack on Pearl Harbor, going to the Moon or Mars, the Germans murdering millions of Jews, Saddam Hussein murdering hundreds of thousands of his beloved citizens, etc, etc.
But as I've asked you before.......Is there an American poll that is specific as to whether or not one believes that the WTC was intentionally brought down by explosives? If there is one, please post it. Until you do, and that poll results in a majority believing the murder theory, painting me as being in some kind of minority is just so much....creative thinking.
"at least a hundred qualified people"
Who are the two or even four most qualified people that you would put up as witnesses if the janitor trial is heard?
I hunger.
Collapse timePosted by Natalie on 2005-11-04 00:57:31

Natty you ask why rabbit brought Bill Manning into the debate, and yet it has already been pointed out to you. He does obviously not accept the official explanation and he is especially critical about the way the things was COVERED UP, because there is no other word for disposing of "All" the evidence of a crime before an investigation. The reason natty since you have forgotten, is because the ONLY THING Rabbit is doing in this phase of your destruction is destrying the Official Lie. The other theories are entered into because the same evidence which destroys the official lie is what unfailingly gives rise to some other theories. there is no way of looking at some things, without concluding the official lie is just that, a LIE.
The rate of fall of the buildings is proof in itself that the buildings could not have been brought done by the offiical LIE. Gravity alone could not do it and that is Physics, we've been there and even you affected the belief that Gravity is too complicated for ordinary mortals to understand, that did not make it so. You just came off as you usually do, as an incredibly dense and stubborn person with a fixation disrupting an intelligent train of dicussion. It is only because it is mildly amusing annoying someone like you with the TRUTH, because it does annoy you, that I bother with you. You cannot hold back the flood, as KVK indicates. You cannot convince anybody of anything, because you have NO facts to offer in defence. You ahve a Fairy story, which is laughable, and looking more so daily. You cannot even back it up without emotion and sweeping statements without reference to anything except the same small bundle of re-cycled report which ahs been thoroughly debunked here and everywhere it has been examined.
You need to address the serious issues and stop the character picking, coming from you a character slur sounds like a pretty fair compliment about someone's decency and honesty. Rabbit never took too much notice of Griffin before but since Natty recommends him so highly it looks like Rabbit shall have to purchase his book. Not that Rabbit needs it, but Books are the best way to teach the older generation who are not on the NET, and Rabbit has lots of contact with lots of people, of all generations. Rabbit is in contact with dozens of people a week and many people come back a couple of times, Rabbit talks a lot and loans books to people too. Griffin must have written a pretty good book, thankyou for recommending him so warmly. Rabbit cannot afford too many books Natty, so don't go attacking too many more people, just stick to the most important ones on your list, there won't you, Natty.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-03 21:06:06

Griffin is not a central player he is one of many. He is just the one of at least a hundred equally or even more respected people who you have decided to latch onto like the Fat Blood Sucking Leech, I mean Vampire you are.
You Natalie have a history of attacking individuals, as a way forwrd when you have NOTHING of substance to give up.
Since Nobody is biting on the character assasinations, Rabbit aint and nor is anybody else, you might as well pack it in. Rabbit has many thousands more words of far more import than a SINGLE personality in the 911 truth movement.
So far all you do is say a man's name and keep on repeating that in itself is an attack. You have been and are being told to grow up, get some serious facts which are being misrepresented or explain where the facts are being interpreted wrongly. You are of course only do this to try and keep the witness reports out of it, and you have never shown you comprhend the fact that a suicide bomber cannot be still alive and called a suicide bomber. There are seven such out of the "official" conspiracy theory list of nineteen.
Don't start blathering on about Ryan. If you doubt him and who he is, how about YOU look it up and prove something for a change, you are gutless, and sleazy as hell, Nat, Rabbit doesn't even think of you as a female anymore, you are a terrible, mishapen beast, a lover of death and hatred and a nasty little dirt slinging gutter snipe is what you are.
You are a SHILL, NOBODY on this site doubts it, you couldn't hide it if you tried, you are so onviously the official in house Shill. This is different from trolls, trolls are amateurs and always have a quirk or two, Shills are towing the line, manning the trenches, in it for the long haul. There were other issues with which a Shill could have been enticed from Depleted Uranium priority numero uno with the Big House of Murder and Mayhem, but this was it, you gave it away on the DU thread, when you started adding the Missile theory of the Pentagon to your gratuitous attacks on somebody else, Rabbit cannot remember who now. (See Natty that is how unimportant these individuals are to the overall truth. You are so busy trying to defend your one gate, but you can't do anything about the fact that there is no fence connected to either side. Truth is as assessible as it gets, and anybody who has reached this point on the internet, (with a few exceptions WTH and Jay) knows how this is so. You don't even have any real lies with the official theory, because it is based on almost NOTHING. No evidence has been produced and all the most important evidence is witheld or known to blatantly contradict the OFFIAL LIE. If you don't mind Natalie, I think we have come far enougfh that we needn't fool ourselves any longer. the Offical theory is not even believed by half of Americans. Now let's face it Natty Americans will believe almost anything, if is is shown on TV, and yet they still don't believe it, for reasons eloquently outlined by the Kid from Kaw Valley. .......You ain't foolin de people mon. ........The rest of the world is not even close to half convinced, most individuals and many governments even have expressed disbelief.
Now that Nat is your starting point. You actually only belong to a minimum of people who don't laugh the official story out of court. That group includeds all the most inform3ed and intelligent people, this site is a typical example but you can find a similar mix of a minimum of people from almost idiot to half an clue, who push the official line and poorly against huge odds. The other side is invariably made up of the top three quarters of society as far as brains and ability to reason are concerned. The odds on the net are about ten to one against anbody being a believer of the LIE actually and therefore rabbit is allowing for the fact that the majority of people who believe the lie are not even on the internet.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-03 20:50:26

Let's get back to Kevin Ryan, shall we? Rabbit, do you have anything more on this guy other than what he has contributed with his now omnipresent email? He seems to have gone underground since he was fired. Why does he not exercise his strength of conviction and speak out? There's money to be made! Could it be that he was just a low-level flunky that worked for a mere division of UL and had no real connection with the investigation UL proper was contributing to and simply decided to take advantage of the fact that he was technically an employee of the visible and notable UL?
I'm not sure exactly why you left out the following two paragraphs of his email. Could it be becaue you knew they would call into question Ryan's credibility and bias?:
"There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and Posted by Natalie on 2005-11-03 08:52:07

KVW, you move me to song, man. To Natalie. May she have ears to hear, and eyes to see.

What NataLIE doesn't realize,is MOST of the "working class" public here in the U.S. KNOW the Official version is a bunch of crap.Its common knowledge sweetie.Yep,those of us that work out in the real world KNOW how things work,how things burn how they fall, we that lay our hands on the world around us KNOW the nature of things.What we don't know is what to do about it!the Office workers and Lawyers and such are the ones who are still fooled.Also, those that want to believe so badly in the american dream(lie)!The elderly,who can't imagine good ole Uncle Sam being involved in such a thing. Yep,we KNOW, and we are VERY scared! Were not scared of "them danged terrorist"Like were supposed to be,we know that is crap too.Well it was before the evil PNAC neocons running things invaded Iraq,giving the entire Muslim community reason to hate America and possibly Become terrorists!And please don't confuse the insurgents for terrorists,they are fighting off an invasion! If we are there to bring democracy and freedom,then both they and we are paying a mighty high price!Yes WE KNOW WE KNOW WE KNOW ! Thousands upon thousands upon millions KNOW! go tell your handlers the word is out!The one thing you shills have going is all that glorious torture propaganda.All the worker bees are scared to death they will be swooped up in the night if they Start talking about it.But rest assured WE KNOW,yes and we ARE talking to each other,and our wifes and kids ARE those office workers and Lawyers and watresses and such.Are all learning the truth too You can run but you can't hide!Yes Yes, and we are telling our parents and grand parents too!the house of cards is falling falling,WE see through the LIES. Have a nice evening.Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on 2005-11-02 21:22:09

Watch out liz, she is a bat, but
NOT a nice MOONBAT.
A bad Vampire Bat.
Back soon.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-02 01:36:16

Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D. is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. He served as chief economist for the US Department of Labor during 2001Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-02 01:19:04

The steel beams and columns came down in sections under 30 feet long and had no signs of "softening"; there was little left but shorn sections of steel and a few bits of concrete.
Photos and videos of the collapses all show "demolition waves," meaning "confluent rows of small explosions" along floors (blast sequences).
According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings.
Each collapse had detectable seismic vibrations suggestive of underground explosions, similar to the 2.3 earthquake magnitude from a demolition like the Seattle Kingdome (p. 108).
Each collapse produced molten steel identical to that generated by explosives, resulting in "hot spots" that persisted for months (the two hottest spots at WTC-2 and WTC-7 were approximately 1,350o F five days after being continuously flooded with water, a temperature high enough to melt aluminum (p. 70).
Controlled demolition would have required unimpeded access to the WTC, access to explosives, avoiding detection, and the expertise to orchestrate the deadly destruction from a nearby secure location. Such access before 9/11 likely depended on complicity by one or more WTC security companies. These companies focus on "access control" and as security specialist Wayne Black says, "When you have a security contract, you know the inner workings of everything." Stratesec, a now-defunct company that had security contracts at the World Trade Center and Dulles International Airport, should be investigated, among others, because of the strange coincidence that President BushPosted by Rabbit on 2005-11-02 01:06:07

Well what do you know you got that right.
What does it proove?
Rabbit thought you might have sailed with the Radioactive Ship of State, so you want to stay here and give us an object lesson in professional diversionary tactics.
The following is indeed a mention of Griffin, has Natalie any answers to these questions?
Griffin (pp. 25Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-02 01:04:01

Please tell me you just didn't realize what you were looking at. Please tell me you're not trusting information posted on this website.
This is strangely reminiscent of citing studies by scientists in Saddam controlled Iraq claiming a rash of birth defects was due to what else.....Depleted Uranium.Posted by Natalie on 2005-11-02 00:55:22

Check that. Actually, it looks like Reynolds mentions Griffin a lot.
Like nine times in this article alone.
"I was never attacked by the press, but, on the other hand, the administration didn't let me out that much." .... Morgan ReynoldsPosted by Natalie on 2005-11-02 00:29:43

Neither of these people mentioned Griffin........................ Natalie...............................if you are still around.
You're the one who mentioned Griffin, Rabbit, first. I only addressed him per your accusations that I ignore what you present. I'm amused that you apparently now wish to wash your hands of him. Am I reading you wrong on this? These people may not have mentioned Griffin, but did Griffin mention them? I would guess that he probably has. Not that it matters, of course. "Even if Griffin was on LSD when he wrote his book, it still wouldn't change anything." I think you may be on to something there.
Of course these are not witnesses either, but their opinions are of consequence thinks the Rabbit.
Opinions? What of FACTS now? First you jettison Griffin and now you embrace opinions?Posted by Natalie on 2005-11-01 23:50:07

Conclusion: The US government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11, 2001, resulting in the deaths of about 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode. With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. Regarding the planes that allegedly flew into the WTC towers, it is only just possible that heavy aircraft were involved in each incident, but no evidence has been produced that would add credence to the government's theoretical version of what actually caused the total destruction of the buildings, let alone proving the identity of the aircraft. That is the problem with the US government's 9/11 story. It is time to apply the precautionary principle. As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in their own country's history.
Neither of these people mentioned Griffin........................ Natalie...............................if you are still around.
Of course these are not witnesses either, but their opinions are of consequence thinks the Rabbit.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-01 22:40:15

Considering the catastrophic incidents of September 11, 2001, certain troubling but irrefutable conclusions must be drawn from the known facts. I get no personal pleasure or satisfaction from reporting my own assessment of these facts. United Airlines Flight 93: This flight was reported by the federal government to be a Boeing 757 aircraft, registration number N591UA, carrying 45 persons, including four supposedly Arab hijackers who had allegedly taken control of the aircraft, crashing the plane in a Pennsylvania farm field. Aerial photos of the alleged crash site were made available to the general public. They show a significant hole in the ground, but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the crash site. If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have been literally hundreds of serially controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft. However, the US government has not produced any hard evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that the specifically alleged aircraft crashed at that site. On the contrary, it has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still in operation.
American Airlines Flight 11: This flight was reported by the US government to be a Boeing 767, registration number N334AA, carrying 92 people, including five Arabs who had allegedly hijacked the plane. This plane was reported to have crashed into the north tower of the WTC complex of buildings. Again, the US government would have no trouble proving its case if only a few of the hundreds of serially controlled parts had been collected to positively identify the aircraft. A Boeing 767 landing gear or just one engine would have been easy to find and identify.
United Airlines Flight 175: This flight was reported to be a Boeing 767, registration number N612UA, carrying 65 people, including the crew and five hijackers. It reportedly flew into the south tower of the WTC. Once more, the government has yet to produce one serially controlled part from the crash site that would have dispelled any questions as to the identity of the specific airplane.
American Airlines Flight 77: This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.
Following cool-down of the resulting fire, it would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment at this crash site within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce aerial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.
Last bit coming up.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-01 22:37:26

This is also on the above link.
9/11 Aircraft Parts as a Clue to Their Identity The following article is by George Nelson, Former American Air Force Official that appeared in the opinion column of Tehran Times on Wednesday, September 21, concerning the highly suspicious aircraft that plowed into New YorkPosted by Rabbit on 2005-11-01 22:33:15

Morgan Reynolds further states: "Getting it right in today's security state" remains challenging because American explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11. From the beginning, the Bush administration claimed that burning jet fuel caused the collapse of the towers. Although many independent investigators have disagreed, they have been hard-pressed to disprove the government theory since most of the evidence was removed by FEMA prior to independent investigation. Critics say the Bush administration has tried to cover up the evidence and the recent 9/11 Commission has failed to address the major evidence contradicting the official version of 9/11. Some facts demonstrating the flaws in the government jet fuel theory include:
-- Photos showing people walking around in the hole in the North Tower where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel supposedly was burning.
-- When the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower's flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes, making it relatively easy to contain and control without a total collapse.
-- The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating, indicating without added explosive devices the fires could have been easily controlled.
-- New York fire fighters still remain under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. -- Even the flawed 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges that "none of the fire chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible."
-- Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.
-- The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were relatively small.
-- WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.
-- WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams.
-- In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, told the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 that "maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it", slang for demolish it.
-- It's difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.
Despite the numerous holes in the government story, the Bush administration has basically ignored any and all critics. Mainstream experts, speaking for the administration, offer a theory essentially arguing that an airplane impact weakened each structure and an intense fire thermally weakened structural components, causing buckling failures while allowing the upper floors to pancake onto the floors below. There is no hard evidence to fully substantiate the official theory since the structural steel was quickly removed before it could be analyzed. Even though the criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be kept for forensic analysis, the government had it destroyed or shipped overseas before a serious investigation could take place. And even more doubt is cast over why the Bush Administration acted so swiftly, since coincidentally officials had arrived the day before the 9/11 attacks at New York's Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, named "Tripod II". Besides the quick removal of the debris, authorities considered the steel quite valuable as New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and even fired one truck driver who took an unauthorized lunch break.
There is more than the one issue here, but it has the above article in full too.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-01 22:29:08

Now for some serious opinions which Rabbit feels deserve attention.
A former chief economist in the Labor Department during President George W. Bush's first term now believes the official story about the collapse of the 110-storey twin towers of the World Trade Centre in New York on September 11, 2001 is 'bogus', saying it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. According to Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D., a former member of the Bush team who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX: "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling." Reynolds who is now a professor at Texas A&M University, also believes it's 'next to impossible' that the supposed 19 Arab terrorists outfoxed the mighty U.S. military. He added that the scientific conclusions about the WTC collapse may hold the key to the entire mysterious plot behind 9/11.
This is a good artccle and Rabbit has referred to it before. Natalie should enjoy attacking Mr Reynolds.
............................morePosted by Rabbit on 2005-11-01 22:25:38

No it is OK, Rabbit found it, yes well it is only an opinion piece, but not altogether a bad article thought I still. Like his argument that truth doesn't need laws to protect it. In the given context.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-01 22:15:34

The story about Barabara Olson turning up alive in Germany or at least on the border, was almost certainly disinfo, the source himslef is possibly a disnfo agent, there are those who suspect so. But it could still have had more to it than has yet cometo light as well. It is not as if the story involving her phonecalls was standing up to any scrutiny after all, and a lot of the Gov't theory rests on the somewhar contradictory evidence of her calls.
Has Liz seen the interesting paasenger list from the Flight 77? Very high percntage of people who would have had to have known about a lot of what was done to pull off the big day. Surprising number of people who researchers would like to talk to are on that list, if rabbit recalls correctly.
Trying to locate the xact link you referred to, could you re-post it please.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-01 22:12:33

Liz wrote:
Hmm, I checked out that erichufschmid.net link you provided a couple of posts above, Rabbit - and I must say I was a bit over-boggled by this one! DonPosted by Natalie on 2005-11-01 22:11:31

I wonder about the passengers, too.
Maybe some of them have ended up on a sort of Witness Protection program... And they've been told they'll be assassinated if they "split".Posted by Liz on 2005-11-01 18:59:32

Hmm, I checked out that erichufschmid.net link you provided a couple of posts above, Rabbit - and I must say I was a bit over-boggled by this one! Don't know who he is but he sounds like a Neo-Nazi... for some reason, some people who hate Bush are - you'd think they'd be the best of pals!
Yes - all this about "White Trash, Black Trash and Brown Trash"... what right has he got to call any group of people, or part of a nation, trash??
Nobody is trash: they are just people with fewer economic opportunities, is all. If Hufschmid understood proper economic theories, ie the left-wing sort, he'd know that!
According to HIM, Australia could be founded on "trash"!!
Oh dear...Posted by Liz on 2005-11-01 18:58:37

Liz, there are amongst these many links, a few which cut to the chase, and really make the case, that is the best Rabbit can say and the least.
KVK is ploughing through and is a chapion for this reason, Rabbit who has posted many things a bit carelessly awaits any and all critique from KVK for thgis reason. Rabbit is of the Opinion only that the aircraft which hit the Pentagon, was a smaller jet at least, and was preceded by a missile, or it was pre-comstructed to break the re-inforcing of that particular part of the wall. Therre doesn't appera to be any reason to believe that it was flight 77, for sure. The most disturbing part of the whole picture is always, and Rabbit dreads the answer, what happened in reality to the Passengers. Sometimes I go to sleep at night wondering and restless about this.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-10-31 23:38:37

Hi Liz, you are welcome.
Rabbit, thank you for the warped history link.
Kaw Valley Kid, thanks for posting the conspracy theory essay.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-31 22:40:31

Thanks David and Rabbit for your HTML tips. Much appreciated. Rabbit, the View - Source code particularly clever; never thought yet to try that!!
You know, guys, I have sent off and read those books (usually by the non-Bushite Christians, is the only way I can think of describing them - you know, all those kind who are into conspiracies)... and the DVD... I think it might be the one advertised on conspiracyplanet.com.... it's got a free DVD about child abuse rings with it - ick! Anyway, it's very good value for money, glossy too, only cost me a few dollars to have that lot sent to GB... however, since I am so bad at remembering names, I would have to go back and look it up again. I agreed with most of what it said. I was particularly taken by - why no huge jet engines found among debris at Pentagon? Building not high enough to crush engines as may well have happened at WTC. Therefore - Pentagon "aircraft" smaller drone, no??
Has to be!!
Lots of long posts on this thread, though... take me days to plough through the arguments on each page!Posted by Liz on 2005-10-31 22:29:32

Kaw Valley Kid, Rabbitreading between the lines, suspects you have at least read the words between Mouse and Rabbit. Here is something which might also be of interest.
It is a perspective, a valuable one.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-10-31 22:27:52

Just at the start of your fist post here KVK, Rabbit just dropping down the page to say this and Hi. Always great to see you, An honest and thoughful "Kid" if ever there was one.
Rabbit is a fast reader, but a thoughful one, often reading a single sentence four or five times while contemplating, so replies will be whenever. Late Monday arvo, Boats cooking in the oven and quite a good time for a Jacks to quieten out the nerves and think a bit. God Squad are the last things on Rabbit's mind while 911 is always a shadow.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-10-31 22:24:23

As an atheist, I agree with Moyers about fundamentalism but his moral equivalence between Islam and Christianity is appalling. As a Christian, Moyers should know that the New Testament supersedes the Old as a New Covenant is established with the teachings of Jesus. Thus, the more peaceful example of JesusPosted by JasonPappas on 2005-10-31 08:56:56

The secrecy stems from a pervasive and fundamental element of life in our world, that those who are at the top of the heap will always take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo.
[S]keptics often ask, "Do you really think the government could hide [anything] for so long?" The question itself reflects ignorance of the reality that secrecy is a way of life in the National Security State. Actually though, the answer is yes, and no.
Yes, in that cover-ups are standard operating procedure, frequently unknown to the public for decades, becoming public knowledge by a mere roll of the dice. But also no, in that ... information has leaked out from the very beginning. It is impossible to shut the lid completely. The key lies in neutralizing and discrediting unwelcomed information, sometimes through official denial, other times through proxies in the media.
[E]vidence [of conspiracy] derived from a grass roots level is unlikely to survive its inevitable conflict with official culture. And acknowledgement about the reality of [conspiracies] will only occur when the official culture deems it worthwhile or necessary to make it. Don't hold your breath.
This is a widespread phenomenon affecting many people, generating high levels of interest, taking place in near-complete secrecy, for purposes unknown, by agencies unknown, with access to incredible resources and technology. A sobering thought and cause for reflection." [Richard Dolan]Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on 2005-10-31 08:34:32

Nearly everything of significance undertaken by America's military and intelligence community in the past half-century has occured in secrecy. The undertaking to build an atomic weapon, better known as the Manhattan Project, remains the great model for all subsequent activities. For more than two years, not a single member of Congress even knew about it although its final cost exceeded two billion dollars.
During and after the Second World War, other important projects, such as the development of biological weapons, the importation of Nazi scientists, terminal mind-control experiments, nationwide interception of mail and cable transmissions of an unwitting populace, infiltration of the media and universities, secret coups, secret wars, and assassinations all took place far removed not only from the American public, but from most members of Congress and a few presidents. Indeed, several of the most powerful intelligence agencies were themselves established in secrecy, unknown by the public or Congress for many years.
Since the 1940s, the U.S. Defense and Intelligence establishment has had more money at its disposal than most nations. In addition to official dollars, much of the money is undocumented. From its beginning, the C.I.A. was engaged in a variety of off-the-record "business" activities that generated large sums of cash. The connections of the C.I.A. with global organized crime (and thus de facto with the international narcotics trade) has been well established and documented for many years. - Much of the original money to run the American intelligence community came from very wealthy and established American families, who have long maintained an interest in funding national security operations important to their interests.
In theory, civilian oversight exists over the US national security establishment. The president is the military commander-in-chief. Congress has official oversight over the C.I.A.. The F.B.I. must answer to the Justice Department. In practice, little of this applies. One reason has to do with secrecy. [...]
A chilling example of such independence occurred during the 1950s, when President Eisenhower effectively lost control of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The situation deteriorated so much that during his final two years in office, Eisenhower asked repeatedly for an audience with the head of Strategic Air Command to learn what America's nuclear retaliatory plan was. What he finally learned in 1960, his final year in office, horrified him: half of the Northern Hemisphere would be obliterated.
If a revered military hero such as Eisenhower could not control America's nuclear arsenal, nor get a straight answer from the Pentagon, how on earth could Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, or Nixon regarding comparable matters?
Secrecy, wealth and independence add up to power. Through the years, the national security state has gained access to the wrorld's most sophisticated technology sealed off millions of acres of land from public access or scrutiny, acquired unlimited snooping ability within U.S. borders and beyond, conducted overt or clandestine actions against other nations, and prosecuted wars without serious media scrutiny. Domestically, it maintains influence over elected officials and communities hoping for some of the billions of defense dollars. [including scientists, universities, etc.]
Deception is the key element of warfare, and when winning is all that matters, the conventional morality held by ordinary people becomes an impediment. When taken together, the examples of official duplicity form a nearly single totality. They include such choice morsels as the phony war crisis of 1948, the fabricated missile gap claimed by the air force during the 1950s, the carefully managed events leading to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution... [...]Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on 2005-10-31 08:33:55

Hi all,sorry I'm late. I've been reading these posts on and off,I'm a slow reader,I've read for around 12 hours,and STILL havent read everything.But I think I have a pretty good feel for the thread....
I've been thinking about WHY people refuse to believe anything but the official conspiracy theory,and why certain people defend it so rigorously.
check this out: It's a bit long but a very interesting read
After all, such ideas - when they are brought to public attention - are generally dismissed as "conspiracy theory" and are thus deemed unworthy of attention.
So please, bear with me a moment here and let's apply a little logic to the problem.
The first thing we want to think about is the fact that the word "conspiracy" evokes such a strong reaction in all of us: nobody wants to be branded as a "conspiracy theorist." It just isn't "acceptable." It's "un-scientific" or it's evidence of mental instability. Right? That's what you are thinking, isn't it?
In fact, I bet that the very reading of the word even produces certain physiological reactions: a slight acceleration of the heartbeat, and perhaps a quick glance around to make sure that no one was watching while you simply read the word silently.
Have you ever asked yourself WHY the word evokes such an instantaneous emotional reaction? Have you ever wondered why it stimulates such a strong "recoil?" After all, it is only a word. It only describes the idea of people in "high places" thinking about things and doing things that manipulate other people to produce benefits for themselves.... .....Richard M. Dolan studied at Alfred University and Oxford University before completing his graduate work in history at the University of Rochester, where he was a finalist for a Rhodes scholarship. Dolan studied U.S. Cold War strategy, Soviet history and culture, and international diplomacy. He has written about "conspiracy" in the following way:
"The very label [conspiracy] serves as an automatic dismissal, as though no one ever acts in secret. Let us bring some perspective and common sense to this issue.
The United States comprises large organizations - corporations, bureaucracies, "interest groups," and the like - which are conspiratorial by nature. That is, they are hierarchical, their important decisions are made in secret by a few key decision-makers, and they are not above lying about their activities. Such is the nature of organizational behavior. "Conspiracy," in this key sense, is a way of life around the globe.
Within the world's military and intelligence apparatuses, this tendency is magnified to the greatest extreme. During the 1940s, [...] the military and its scientists developed the world's most awesome weapons in complete secrecy... [...]
Anyone who has lived in a repressive society knows that official manipulation of the truth occurs daily. But societies have their many and their few. In all times and all places, it is the few who rule, and the few who exert dominant influence over what we may call official culture. - All elites take care to manipulate public information to maintain existing structures of power. It's an old game.
America is nominally a republic and free society, but in reality an empire and oligarchy, vaguely aware of its own oppression, within and without. I have used the term "national security state" to describe its structures of power. It is a convenient way to express the military and intelligence communities, as well as the worlds that feed upon them, such as defense contractors and other underground, nebulous entities. Its fundamental traits are secrecy, wealth, independence, power, and duplicity.Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on 2005-10-31 08:33:02

The more................
We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.
The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the buildingPosted by Rabbit on 2005-10-31 01:16:21

The Collapse of the WTC Not Caused by Jet Fuel
KEVIN RYAN / Underwriters Laboratories 11nov04The following letter was sent today by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the World Trade Center towers. The information in this letter is of great importance.
Dr. Gayle,
Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.
As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.
There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuelPosted by Rabbit on 2005-10-31 01:14:56

From the Conspiracy Channel
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?ChannelID=75
911: Govt-Media Suspends Laws of Physics
by J. McMICHAEL
".......................................But enough of myself. Let us move on to the Science and Technology of
the 21st Century. Those of you who cannot believe should learn the
official truth by rote and perhaps you will be able to hide your
ignorance.
Here are the bare bones of the WTC incident:
North tower struck 8:45, collapsed 10:29;
South tower struck 9:03, collapsed 9:50;
(See http://www.infoplease.com/spot/sept112001.html)
Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is
also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work,
and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people. Ironworkers
fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from
generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what
did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80 cents
a gallon on the open market.
Let us consider: One plane full of jet fuel hit the north tower at
8:45 AM, and the fuel fire burned for a while with bright flames and
black smoke. We can see pictures of the smoke and flames shooting
from the windows.
Then by 9:03 (which time was marked by the second plane's collision
with the south tower), the flame was mostly gone and only black smoke
continued to pour from the building. To my simple mind, that would
indicate that the first fire had died down, but something was still
burning inefficiently, leaving soot (carbon) in the smoke. A fire
with sooty smoke is either low temperature or starved for oxygen
-- or
both.
http://www.fosters.com/news2001c/september/11/04758CA1-AC58_4591-9F50-5976D2
BE2E04.jpg
But by 10:29 AM, the fire in north tower had accomplished the feat
that I find so amazing: It melted the steel supports in the building,
causing a chain reaction within the structure that brought the
building to the ground.
And with less fuel to feed the fire, the south tower collapsed only 47
minutes after the plane collision, again with complete destruction.
This is only half the time it took to destroy the north tower.
I try not to think about that. I try not to think about a petroleum
fire burning for 104 minutes, just getting hotter and hotter until it
reached 1538 degrees Celsius (2800 Fahrenheit) and melted the steel
(steel is about 99% iron; for melting point of iron, see
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Fe/heat.html).
I try not to wonder how the fire reached temperatures that only bottled
oxygen or forced air can produce.
And I try not to think about all the steel that was in that building
-- 200,000 tons of it (see
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/wtc1.html
for stats). I try to forget that heating steel is like pouring syrup
onto a plate: you can't get it to stack up. The heat just flows out
to the colder parts of the steel, cooling off the part you are trying
to warm up. If you pour it on hard enough and fast enough, you can
get the syrup to stack up a little bit. And with very high heat
brought on very fast, you can heat up the one part of the object, but
the heat will quickly spread out and the part will cool off the moment
you stop.
When the heat source warms the last cold part of the object, the heat
stops escaping and the point of attention can be warmed.
If the north tower collapse was due to heated steel, why did it take
104 minutes to reach the critical temperature?
(See http://www.infoplease.com/spot/sept112001.html).Posted by Rabbit on 2005-10-31 00:41:01

THE MYSTERY OF THE WTC COLLAPSEThe more one reads about the World Trade Center collapse, the more skeptical they should become of the Posted by Rabbit on 2005-10-31 00:31:21

Read the article from above posting.
Not you Nat you have other things to worry about.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-10-31 00:26:28

Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact
By Randy Lavello
By now the misinformation and ignored findings surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks have evaporated the official version into the land of fiction. DidnPosted by Rabbit on 2005-10-31 00:24:03

Manning is not the issue here either Nat, he was presented as an Engineer who represents many others, and he doesn't accept the government story, draws serious flaws to attention and the fact is that the insulation was in place, that was another red-herring you liars tried on while the plans were still missing to prove otherwsie. All debiunked now..
Now how about facts Natalie, which matter. Do you always try to understand what is going on in a matter by examining the direction birds fly and how the leaves fall? Why cannot we see exactly what it is you take exception to about Griffin's theories? What Facts has he altered from truth and how has he flown in the face of logic or science?
Rabbit does not think it matters what Griffin had for breakfast, or whether or not everyone agrees with him. What matters is the body of evidence.
Now Rabbit has been busy but will give Nat lots of Important Opinions soon. So she can then ignore this issue and move onto something equally as inane. More tissues Natty more tissues. We can still see this huge elephant, and it's very pink. Try putting the towels over its head. Don't worry nobody is looking up yet.
Nat is a Dr Zeus character.
Natty the Batty.
It was noticed that the more deluded one is the more confused by the test results you are. Jay and you are as you say the most confused. You are in GREAT COMPANY there Nat. Jay and Nat agreat team. Jay is definately the brains of the outfit, but Nat has the claws.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-10-30 22:49:14

There ain't nobody here but us Sneeches
There ain't nobody here at all.
So calm yourself
And stop your fuss
There ain't nobody here but us.
apologies to Louis Jordan and Dr. Seuss.
Nat, I appreciate knowledge; expertise and experience, professional skill and professional ethics. I don't assume anyone in a professional position or position of authority necessarily bears any or all of those characteristics. Most everyone in every workplace I've ever been in also has a keen awareness on what side their bread is buttered. Manning strikes me as a pretty straight arrow, trying to do his best with what he is given. What he is given is a big emptiness where the evidence is supposed to be and a crap piece of theory (hypothesis really) from the Feds. It most clearly and unambigiously is not a theory he believes. He is very politic in how he says it. I do my own engineering and design work. I completed the AA requirements, but never took a degree. I'm mostly a autodidact. I don't pretend to expertise for myself, but I have learned to recognize it.
What else don't you know about anarchism? Besides everything?
The thing I did that was in bad form was to declare at the dinner table my opinion that Martin Luther King, Jr. was
hands down the greatest living American orator. Things went downhill from there.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-30 19:25:23

Thanks for adding that dimension about the Sneeches, David. It looks like the correct spelling may be Sneetch, although both spellings are used. I don't remember for sure if they were actually on a beach, but I do remember the feelings the story invoked, even way back then.
It's true that right as well as left took the test; I did, and I know that Jay did. But I would charachterize our attitude about it as reluctant and skeptical.
It seems to me that being categorized is something that "progressives" hate, even more than most people do, so I was surprised at their apparent eagerness to take such a test.
Just a mild observation, very possibly being devoid of even the slightest bit of validity.Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-30 18:53:27

Natalie the Ex German defense minister, believes they were4 brought down by explosives and a whole lot more to. You are being WAY to presumptive about what we can and cannot produce regarding witnesses, and opinions.
Your presumption that we cannot is wrong, Rabbit is assembling another knock down case for you along these very lines, have no fear.
In the meantime there are a couple of far more important matters. The first is that, whether or not any specific type of person said that explosives is the only answer, that doesn't change all the EVIDENCE which you are ignoring for this smoke and mirror game. The evidence itself is so easily interoreted that the whole idea of demanding more and more expert opinion, is beside the point. That is a start, you were actually given a point for free and you would rather try and do a victory dance on the spot for a page than to discuss real significant issues. Do you or not understand that, even if Griffin was to turn out to be a complete lunatic, and he wrote the whole book while on an acid trip, it doesn't refute the actual argument. Now do you have any of griffins conclusions, based upon the facts as he applies them?
Luminous Beauty, has told you even more clearly than can Rabbit, where and why you are going wrong. Luminous has a fine mind, and that is what you are only partly acknowledging in your babbling. You are like a petulant child and Rabbit also finds it hard not to treat you with condescension. You are not building any sort of argument, you are only Dissembling and indulging in shameless Character Assassination. Even this is failing.
It must be hard being a SHILL. Rabbit has seen it before. You have got an impossible task. Keep a lid on something this big, and make it seem natural.
Rabbit sees Nat as like a Girl, who is given the task of camouflaging a Pink Elephant, which has taken up lodging in the living room, after falling through the roof. Nat has been given two Bathtowels and a box of tissues to achieve it and she must somehow do this and keep the guests who may be arriving any minute from looking up and noticing the hole in the roof. Even if she can somehow disguie the elephant, she can't afford the people looking up and wondering why that hole is in the roof.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-10-30 17:09:50

sorry, another correction, this one more important ...
and Sneech on the Beach is a good analogy regarding the reactions of some people to Political Compass results .Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-30 16:32:08

correction ... It was a nice trip ..
Natalie,
... and Sneech on the Beach is a good analogy regarding the Political Compass.
I will point out that people from the other side of the spectrum, or their perceived side of the spectrum, were lining up for the Sneech Machine too and were trying to get a star and/or scratch off the star they got.
Nice analogy though. You get a star on your belly. hehe
But, enough digression, for me, today, at least.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-30 16:03:00

A was a nice trip down memory lane with Dr. Seuss. Thanks Natalie.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-30 15:26:26

More Sneech info .
Good read here.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-30 15:23:04

See the Sneech on the Beach .
Scroll down near bottom for the Sneech pic.
But the Seuss poem near the top is worth the trip too.
Excuse the interruption. Please continue.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-30 15:06:21

O.K., Sir Wordsmith, I thought you might latch onto that rather selective quote. You'll notice however, that I reproduced the entire quote just a couple or so posts back. That's certainly a far more accurate picture of Manning's true mindset than was given in Rabbit's original article.
You misunderstand if you think I was attempting to quote Manning out of context in an attempt to turn his opinion into fact. All I'm trying to say is that it is a FACT that Manning's theory, and yes I know, theory, what else do we have?, is that the buildings collapsed due to inadequate fireproofing. Deliberately placed explosives do not appear to even be on his radar screen. I'm satisfied to simply establish this FACT about his CURRENT THEORY, lest there be any confusion. And yes, I'm well aware that his theory may have been different if he had his way and the steel had been sequestered in some huge warehouse, football stadium or field.
My apologies to Rabbit if indeed he was only attempting to illustrate that there was a rush to re-forge, for whatever reason, and was fully aware that Fireman Manning didn't necessarily agree with him about explosives.
You seem to discount the value of professional opinion in this matter, even to the point of painting them as "the man". It makes me wonder who you go to for surgery, or legal advice, or to design your home so it won't collapse until it's time for deliberate implosion.
You and Rabbit seem to have little regard for the engineering professionals who have thus far ignored far-fetched theories about deliberate mass-murder.
Can you type at me with straight fingers and claim that you wouldn't be proud as a peacock to reproduce in big bold print the certified opinion of a genuine well respected structural engineer of national or world renown stating his firm belief that the only way those buildings could have collapsed was due to pre-placed explosives?
Oh, but it looks like maybe you're not quite so sure about the murder theory as is Rabbit. I didn't discern that before. Perhaps Rabbit needs to do the typing. Wise, you, perhaps, not to jump into either camp until the dust has cleared. I along with the ever confident Rabbit have chosen to take the leap. One of us will end up looking foolish, but at least we're not afraid to commit.
I've taken the political compass test, as I stated earlier. I ended up on the centerline right/left, and slightly below center, maybe a quarter inch, up and down.
I put about as much relevance in a test like this as I do in next month's weather report. But what fascinates me is how the "anarchists" here are so eager to line up to be classified, stamped with a number, and emerge to boast about it like some Sneech on a beach. This seems wholly at odds with their normal resistance to being put in boxes and labeled, lest that label not accurately represent their whole complex make-up. Perhaps it's a way to make sure you're not becoming your parents, and make the necessary corrections?
"Imagine my dismay when I discovered in my adolescence that I was expected to believe in those things, but it was just bad form to act upon them. My first lesson in hypocrisy"
What did you do, or want to do, that was found to be in such bad form? That may be too personal; nothing assumed by your choosing not to answer.Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-30 13:10:29

It baffles me that someone capable of such linguistic magnificence would buy into such nonsensical theories as have been presented here, ironically below an article about a crazy fundamentalist.
Thanx for the compliment, I guess. I make no bones about my biases, do you? Are you willing to take the test and honestly report the results?
CLICK HERE Come on in. The water's fine.
You are in error to think I am buying into anything. I am only curious. I have had my questions about these matters, but until this conversation, really haven't focused on them. There are so many curious matters in these 'interesting times'. As with any mystery, it is the unanswered questions that are of the most interest. It is plain that Rabbit has expended considerable time and effort pursuing answers to those questions. You know, doing the actual research. For that he has my respect and gratitude. It is plain there are many more unanswered questions, and to me it seems reasonable to encourage Rabbit and those others, visible and invisible, engaged in this pursuit to continue seeking answers rather than try to convince them to give it up just because you, in your uneducated opinion, believe it is 'nonsense'. It is Rabbit who is making sense and you are just making poo-poo in your diapers.
"Oh! The irony...the irony."
Col. KlinkPosted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-30 08:06:04

Natalie:
Please, you are insulting only your own intelligence. After making such a big deal about putting Manning in context you do this:
The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, THE SUBSEQUENT CONTENTS FIRES ATTACKING THE QUESTIONABLY FIREPROOFED LIGHTWEIGHT TRUSSES AND LOAD-BEARING COLUMNS DIRECTLY CAUSED THE COLLAPSES in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.
Now, if I were corresponding with any ordinary reasonable person, I would only have to show this statement to them and they would realize immediately that saying the capitalized portion represents the speaker's
opinion is the most egregious sort of deceptive quote mining. But in your case I feel this preternatural necessity to explain everything as explicitly as possible, much as one does to a very small child. To wit; What, you Natalie, are claiming as Manning's opinion is diametrically opposite to what he is actually saying. I put the operative language in bold so you can see clearly that this is the case. This is more than just intellectual dishonesty, Natalie. In plain language, it is a lie. You are no child. It is well past time for you put away childish things.
I will continue to put my money on properly credentialed individuals in applicable fields who have put their names and reputations on the line, over those of a polar-opposite variety
As long as you put your faith only in accepted authority, you will be incapable of thinking for yourself. You make yourself a slave to other's opinions. I perceive those who step outside conventional wisdom on any matter to represent the noblest form of courage. Even if they are mad as hatters, they really are putting their reputations on the line and if they are professionally employed in that field risk their livelihood, sometimes even their freedom and their lives. Worse yet, they risk harm to those they love. Such is the nature of conventional vengeance. This cannot be said of those who merely and meekly follow the herd. It is what I was raised, in a very conservative home, to believe the USA was supposed to represent; the innovative mind, freedom of conscience and the pursuit of truth, the pioneering spirit, Tom Paine, Ben Franklin, Tom Jefferson, etc. Imagine my dismay when I discovered in my adolescence that I was expected to believe in those things, but it was just bad form to act upon them. My first lesson in hypocrisy.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-30 08:04:52

Bugger...........................HTML is a silly language, electrons could if we knew how to tell them.

Now there will be more on Structural Engineers shortly, but for now this should remove this small impediment to your understanding, the interview was crap, Rabbit read it. The other guy was pathetic, never mentioning anthing which seriously challenged Griffin. He just said it was obviously too crazy to be tru like you. You are too crazy to be true actually from where we sane and logical people are sitting.
Go back and read the italicised post about your illness, HIV as it is defined there.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 25, 2005 at 8:54 AM
Yes Natalie, try and debunk
this source.
Engineers, enough for you, doubting Nat?
Rabbit is not finished pounding your spiteful little snippy thing, but you still feel free to talk about witnesses like Rodriguez and the Firemen who claim there were explosions, both before and after the planes hit.
Come on Nat, stop dissembling, make a claim and back it up.

Anything about Griffin? Rabbit actually said you could have the point that Griffin may not have had a structural engineer to confer, but as pointed out, so what? Does this alter the claims? How about we look at them in detail, they are not theory, in as much as the details are there to be verified. the theory is like all theories not forbidden to "common men".
Griffin could be a Janitor and it would not affect the validity of a theory based on verifiable facts. The proof is in the message not the messenger. Nat you are trying to isolate the deabe into Character assainations and yet have gone to great lengths to keep your own person secret. Not that Rabbit cares, he knows who you are, but he thinks your personal attacks are so predictable, the same was true of the Radioactive Wounds Of War Thread. You used the tactic there and it was a spectacular pile of Sh*t. You should perhaps try to review your tactics, try and find something more subtle.
Due to popular demand the Rabbit shall do just this. Rabbit will now cease to be a ghost. It is the SHILLS, Nat the Bat and Dodgy Rodgy who made it necessary to speak as a Rabbit from the grave. Rabbit is hoping to be reborn any moment, he hears his name being called..................ULTRA RABBIT..............................^^...............................Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-30 01:35:59

Uh.........................Natalie........Rabbit would like to point out that this is a thread and it allows the matter of what Rabbit was saying and what he was not saying, about engineers, to be settled in a moment. Rabbit was as you would by now know, busy burying your bony backside along with a stake through your wizened heart, alongside Ramjet the Dragon of Death.
Now to what was said, nd notice how many times Griffin is mentioned in the following.............
Now there will be more on Structural Engineers shortly, but for now this should remove this small impediment to your understanding, the interview was crap, Rabbit read it. The other guy was pathetic, never mentioning anthing which seriously challenged Griffin. He just said it was obviously too crazy to be tru like you. You are too crazy to be true actually from where we sane and logical people are sitting.
Go back and read the italicised post about your illness, HIV as it is defined there.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 25, 2005 at 8:54 AM
Yes Natalie, try and debunk
this source.
Engineers, enough for you, doubting Nat?
Rabbit is not finished pounding your spiteful little snippy thing, but you still feel free to talk about witnesses like Rodriguez and the Firemen who claim there were explosions, both before and after the planes hit.
Come on Nat, stop dissembling, make a claim and back it up.
Luminous Beauty has set you to rights at least for the sake of all rational observeres, about the others issues, and Rabbit expects what he has as yet unread is mainly Natty being a Shatty Little Batty, and blathering as is her custom about silly things, the name on a mailbox instead of who lives in the house, for example.
Rabbit shall reply of course if he feels Nat has earned anything beyond what Luminous Beauty has given thee. It seems likely since your post is the last one, that Rabbit will be back to wack the Nat on the crack, of truth.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-30 01:22:05

"Your opinion and welcome to it. That and $4.65 will get you a viente mocha frappaccino at Starbucks. Treat yourself, you deserve it."
No, not opinion, FACT, or as close as we can come to it from the testimony provided:
"THE SUBSEQUENT CONTENTS FIRES ATTACKING THE QUESTIONABLY FIREPROOFED LIGHTWEIGHT TRUSSES AND LOAD-BEARING COLUMNS DIRECTLY CAUSED THE COLLAPSES" .....Bill Manning....Professional Engineer.
It think it's fairly safe to say that Bill Manning and every other genuine engineering professional that has contributed to the WTC post-mortem does not suspect or have any reason to suspect that the buildings were deliberately demolished. Until I learn otherwise, as Rabbit has promised and has so far not delivered on, I will continue to put my money on properly credentialed individuals in applicable fields who have put their names and reputations on the line, over those of a polar-opposite variety.
"My inference from the style and character of your argumentation is you are being much too single-mindedly partisan. This is not a court of law, it is a consensual conversation. In any case, ItPosted by Natalie on 2005-10-30 00:10:16

All that stuff is vaguely interesting, Nat, but it's all pretty much bye the bye. The fact under contention here is not whether Manning agrees in any general way with Griffin, or Rabbit likewise agrees with Griffin, or Griffin with Manning or Manning with Rabbit or me with you; but with whether the steel beams were hauled away lickety-split to China without any skilled teams of assessors sent in with notebooks, lasers and measuring sticks to make what are uncontroversially routine and essential examinations and measurements of any unexpected catastrophe approaching a fraction of this magnitude. It seems that we all are in agreement about that. Time to move on, Natalie, dear.
You seem old enough to realize
gotcha games are a futile exercise.
You wrote:
Now come on, Lume, youPosted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-29 21:37:41

Now come on, Lume, you're imagining what you think Rabbit was intending by his post. He said no such thing as "I challenge you to debunk the fact that this fire engineer's complaints support Griffin's theory." He simply challenged me to debunk Manning. (I think) After reading his article IN CONTEXT, I realized I had no quarrel with Manning, only with the implication left by Rabbit that this particular engineer endorsed the implosion theory. Whether Rabbit intended that or not, I thought it important, given the context of the discussion and the lack of clarity by Rabbit and the article he cited, to make clear that Manning does not.
Bill Manning in context. Note that he specifically states that his theory is based on questionable fire-proofing techniques, not on explosive charges, and has issues with several entities besides FEMA:
"However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, THE SUBSEQUENT CONTENTS FIRES ATTACKING THE QUESTIONABLY FIREPROOFED LIGHTWEIGHT TRUSSES AND LOAD-BEARING COLUMNS DIRECTLY CAUSED THE COLLAPSES in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.
The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise. The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings' fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions."
To summarize, I don't think it likely that Bill Manning would be called as a witness for the prosecution in the matter of "the alternative theories community" v GWB.Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-29 20:05:52

Sorry Nat,
All I can offer is the booby prize in the battle of opinion. You may well have desired Rabbit to name an engineer that believed as his professional opinion that Griffin's theory was correct. However, Rabbit didn't bite. Rabbit has said regularly and often that he is concerned with fact, not opinion. Rabbit made zero claims about Manning's opinion. Rabbit's challenge was for you to debunk his contention that the facts of Manning's complaint supported Griffin's theory. You have admitted that it could. Your idle ad hoc speculations of what else it could mean doesn't change the fact that Manning fingers FEMA, not the Port Authorities or the owners or construction company or anyone else, as responsible for actions that made proper analysis impossible. That FEMA is politically corrupt is no longer particularly controversial. Nice try though. After my first read, I really thought you got me.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-29 16:59:19

That thread ... to be shut down soon .. comment while you can ..
Radioactive Wounds of War
... not this thread where you are now.
Clarification is good.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-29 14:07:46

Rabbit,
Thanks for clarifying. Seems like Liz maybe likes the box things . hehe
The HTML is fun and useful. Thanks to Jay and Rabbit for being the pioneers for many of us in this wilderness.
Most importantly, for me, is that allows one to add nuance to one's words that would otherwise not be there or at least difficult to convey.
I prefer a more personal and conversational tone to my comments so I don't like the block quote boxes too much. Just a gut reaction .
Best of all , maybe , is the
hyperlinks .
Hyperlinks
allow you to provide clickable references for others.
Showing off a little there but am a wee bit proud of the new tricks. Curious Dave figured it out... with a little help from his friends.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-29 13:54:19

One bourbon, one scotch, and one beer.
Last call for comments on :
Radioactive Wounds of War.
This thread is soon to be shut down. Comment while you still can.
The link is to the second last page (for now) to allow for some context to recent developments.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-29 12:58:30

I don't agree with your analysis, beautiful referee, and I must register a "challenge" to your call.
In a debate between Griffin and Berlet, Griffin could not cite the name of any bona-fide structural engineer that agreed with his contention that the towers were brought down by explosives, even after having recently written an entire book on this and related subjects. I asked Rabbit if he knew of any, could he help Griffin out?
Rabbit apparently thought he had found one:
"Yes Natalie, try and debunk
this source. (article selectively quoting Manning)
Engineers, enough for you, doubting Nat?"
The way I read this, Rabbit was saying: "here is an engineer that agrees with Griffin on the explosives thing" and I could see how Rabbit might think this from reading the selectively quoted article. But when you read in context what Manning has to say, you can't in any way conclude that he subscribes to the implosion theory. You are correct, one could use his concerns to support the parts of their theory having to do with not being able to do a proper examination. But one could also conclude, and I think much more believably, that any attempt at hurriedly discarding the evidence was done to prevent people from finding out that perhaps the builders or designers of the WTC, or people that signed off on it (Port Authority) might be liable for some huge damages due to improper fire-proofing or even structural design. This makes a certain amount of sense, whereas deliberately destroying buildings and murdering people do not, so far as I can tell. (Actually, I think people were simply trying to clean up the mess as fast as they could because it was simply a horrible mess. Nobody likes a horrible mess in the middle of their city)
Manning is not saying "exactly" what Rabbit is saying. He is saying a small part of what Rabbit is saying, but on the main point of contention here, whether or not the towers were deliberately destroyed by someone other than a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists, (these are the real fundamentalists we should be criticizing, not the likes of Pat Robertson btw) Manning apparently doesn't agree. Perhaps privately he does, but to use his words to imply that he does is disingenuous. Now if Rabbit indeed was only trying to say: "here is someone that's saying the clean-up was too hasty," I apologize for assuming too much, but I believe my assumptions were logical given the context of the discussion.
I suspect that the reason he "let one past", is that he is smart enough to realize that indeed Manning doesn't qualify as an engineer that could be cited as one that supports his and Griffin's implosion theory.Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-29 12:37:32

Poor Nat, even when you get a freeby cause Rabbit let one past, some meany takes it away. Natalie got close to a point then even if by default. That was a personal milestone I think.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-29 07:27:27

As much as I personally enjoy and admire your rambling stream-of-consciousness style, Rabbit (it is so rabbit-like; fuzzy and gentle on the outside, disguising a core of whip-like sinew and muscle underneath), I'm afraid your general critique of Natalie's reasoning power may have left her with the idea that she has scored a point with her claim about the firemen. She says:
Bill Manning as far as I can find does not suspect that the WTC was intentionally demolished.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-29 07:07:49

Sorry Dave and Liz, Rabbit is almost stream of consciousness keyboarding sometimes and this is why always he re-reads his posts. Occasioanlly it takes a twist most unwanted, as in the following case.
Dave, who is a curious Monkey as it happens, was a bit impressed with the Moron with airs, so grabbed the info off google only to rememeber he used to speak the language.
It is best that Rabbit clarifies this.
Rabbit meant that David wondered about Jay and his magic firesticks. Rabbit said no, it is just knowing the language of the electrons, or in this case a kind of Pidgin language of Electrons. Rabbit then grabbed the info from a google of "HTML codes" as an example of the versatility of the Internet. and posted them. The thing is right now Rabbit is trying to get an agreement going to NOT use Blockquotes, (Box Things). They, like Smilies are just wank. But it is one of those "fun" kind of protests, where the result is no more than a dunking in a cold water bath.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-29 01:27:14

Hi Liz
Rabbit has responded joyfully to your renewed presence on another thread. The time came when Rabbit was tired of a particular poser who was saying nothing but saying it with falshy tricks and wizbangery. Rabbit does not have any more respect flashy things and whizzbangery than any technician of 15 years and Pyrotechnician would be expected to.
Dave, who is a curious Monkey as it happens, was a bit impressed with the Moron with airs, so grabbed the info off google only to rememeber he used to speak the labguage.
here is a tip................Go to View in the top left of your screen. Left click, select SOURCE and then left click it. Look at the gobbledegook on that page with the following in mind. HTML commands start with <> and end with > so if you duplicate that, and replace whatever is between the two with what you want.............. Voila...........
It is a simple way to grab little tunes and pretty goodies for one's own web site etc. It is the way in which one looks under the Magician's table.
It isn't that Rabbit's don't mind sitting inside of hats for a while, if the hat is the right shape. It is just that you don't actually pick up a full grown Rabbit by the ears, while it has been sitting quitely, in a hat, contemplating, and expect it's attitude to be conducive to the illusion.
As for the rest, dear soul, touch Rabbit's ears, and drop him a line.
..............^^..................Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-29 01:18:35

Hi Liz
click here for HTML tips
ITT allows some HTML. Bold , Italic , Hyperlinks as shown above and a couple others.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-28 14:39:25

And actually, this is the angriest I've ever seen the Rabbit on this forum (sorry I've been elsewhere for the past few weeks).
But the World Trade Center conspiracy makes me angry too, when I read about it....Posted by Liz on 2005-10-28 12:41:03

I believe that the World Trade Center wasn't crushed to confetti "by accident" or by natural forces, either......Posted by Liz on 2005-10-28 12:21:38

Hi, Rabbit, how's yourself??
Liz is on the line again!!
I don't know anything really about the controversy, 'cept I hate Pat Robertson!! And all his ilk....
Somebody's been nasty to me on another site, and I've gone off Christians anyway, even those (pretending) to be (semi)liberal; they're all hypocritical and if it's their blog or whatever, they delete your posts if they don['t like them and make out it's "spam"! And this is if they're pretending to be "liberal"!
I feel sad, Rabbit. I detect you have had similar experiences... but it was even worse, family members 'n all, wasn't it??
Oh, Rabbit. I don't care about left or right or that funny fellow you said you liked. Is there any way in which we can give comfort to one another, oh furry one??
And, hey... this site has changed "look" again! It's evolving all the time!
Could Rabbit please help with tips on formatting? (Some sites use simplified html and I never know which type they use!! At least with imdb they tell you how to use it!)
Is there a page here, to tell one?? Or some tools somewhere which help you put bold on it, and so on - do those boxes?
Where did you find that, Rabbit??
Can anyone tell me how to post a link properly??
Would be much obliged....Posted by Liz on 2005-10-28 12:18:52

Rabbit who has not ignored your points about engineers at all having referred to the matter in several posts since. Rabbit does not know or care if Structural Engineers collaborated on griffin's book. As far as Rabbit knows the book establishes the known FACTS, and applies simple logic which doesn't even require such expert evidence. The man is not the point, the facts are what they are, you have to make your theory fit the facts, not the other way around.
Rabbit did actually post references including Engineers who believe explosives brought them down, better read them and see. That they were not connected to Griffin only strengthens the case anyway.
Since Rabbit is feeling generous, he shall award you a free point. We shall say, that Griffin did not have a structural engineer to help him. (this may be corrected by another, rabbit doesn't know) What difference does that make to the facts and how they relate to what happened? So you've shown not that Griffin is wrong or even that he is lying, but that he doesn't have a structural engineers help in writing hois book. Rabbit doesn't need a structural engineer to understand the simple facts which have been dealt with on this thread, nor does anyone.
So far we have established that there is scientific theory as well as seismic evidence and video evidence which suggests the buildings were collapsed with explosives. Now we shall consider the witenss testimony from people who saw and heard things which indicated explosives. this includes numeroues firemen. A janitor and another two dozen witnesses at the same place and reporters, maybe we'll throw in a policeman or two for natalie to feel really safe.
Would Nat feel safe between a couple of policemen?
..........................................................^^..............................................Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-27 00:01:33

You've "taken Rabbit to task" on those issues have you Nat?
You have raised them, usually as a consequence of avoiding much more significant issues and Rabbit has turned each of your challenges into a rout for your cause, without even trying. You have consistently avoided a huge volume of evidence and are persistent in your desire to find individuals upin which to practise subtle and sometimes overt character assaination or smearing. Your tactics have been described with scientific precision in a quote above and what you all you are doing is conforming to a stereotypical SHILL performance. The things you press are not significant on their own most often, even if you could diprove any of them all you do is try and dent the credibility of the sources as they are presented. Despite the fact the source are many and varied you repeatedly name only one or two sites pretending that they are the originator of the bodies of evidence and opinion being shown here.
Don't presume to lecture Rabbit on honesty or orderly debating. You have nothing so far, nothing to back up your Crazy Conspiracy theories Natal;ie. Rabbit and other have ammassed all that is so far on this thread. It would take you weeks to read through it all, and amongst it can be found the strongest case imaginable for the THEORY that the US government was behind 911, and that the WTCs were brought down with explosives.
But we have hardly begun as for what Natalie chooses to acknowledge, by challenging even in a peripheral sense.
The witness info has not been posted before now since Rabbit saw no point in just posting even more things for Natalie to ignore.
Rabbit would guess that Natalie has bugged out when it became apparent that we were going to have to face up to the witness tesimony, for new orders. She has had to be briefed in the tactics to be employed in this as yet seldom explored topic on internet debates. Many of us are waiting with bated breath, what will be the official response?
Rabbit expects it will be the same old same old, attack the man, each one individually, draw any and all doubt, show they also hate Bush, (as if that would not follow knowing the truth).
Natalie has already given up the game. Did we see that she has: IPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-26 23:48:19

O.K., Rabbit, tell me more about witnesses. But when you say I've ignored everything you say, I don't think that is accurate. I've taken you to task on several of the points you yourself have brought up. Speed of collapse, concrete to dust, why columns wouldn't be left standing, etc. But when I press you on something, you say things like "why are you obsessed with this small point. It's unimportant in the whole context" (paraphrasing)
I would be happy to learn about the witnesses. I would be happy to address them. I have not been ignoring the issue, It's just that you haven't really introduced much on it, except for the word "witnesses" and the janitor. I've read that even folks of your persuasion don't think his suit is helping their cause.
I assume from your silence that neither you or Griffin have the name of a structural engineer that endorses your theory.Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-26 09:54:19

Rabbit will never do another blockquote box thing, he hates them.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-26 02:35:20

Natalie it is you who has ignored most everything rabbit has said, especially the most signifivcant things, you disapear for a while rather than answer somethings directly, and b=never address thyem upon return. This is not a pissing contest, we are trying to establish actual facts which support or challenge your lunatic Government inspired conspiracy theory.
You do not have the moral stature in this debate due to the avoidance and refusal to acknowledge so much that has been directly addressed to you, and which refferred to FACTS of some consequence. You lack the stature due to such lowly behaviour, to dictate the subject at will. We are not interested in people but in the facts. Rabbit has said it before to you stupid woman.........What qualifications does one need to tell the truth?

WITNESSES

Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-26 02:32:44

Rabbit knows of this book, but why would rabbit have it? He is a poor Rabbit and cannot just go buying any book he wants.
Rabbit was not referring to the book at this juncture in time, and is surprised you would expect anyone to just know to what book you might be alluding after the amount of references and books which have been recommended to you so far and which you have so far refused to acknowledge.
Let's stop pissing around with small unimportant things and talk about something of direct consequence. What Facts do we have, which cannot be disputed and how do we fit them into our respective theories about how they happened.
WITNESSES
Is Rabbit just imagining it or is that the nineteenth time he has remarked about the witnesses and not a word from Nat regarding them, no she would rather talk about books and then only if the talk is limited to the auther of the book. No thanks Natalie. It is your theory which is being challenged, not mine, Rabbit will make his theories clear and back them with suitable evidence once we have established that almost everything you believe about 911 is false.
Now ....................Witnesses........... Natalie, if you are incapable of dicussing basic physics without claiming it is too technical for you to understand. Let us discuss people, who they were and what they say they saw, and how much their differnet stories converge on one important detail. Explosions of BOMBS, before and after the Planes hit the WTCs. This will relate back to all the technical evidence of explosives, you have so far ignored, but it is there for others to follow. Others who will follow you natalie, perhaps rooting for you for a while, hoping you will support their beliefs against this upstart Rabbit. Come now you must put up a more inspiring effort, you are an embarrassment to the cause of willful ignorance. Even they can see that, and some of your followers are faltering already, saying as you are about to do, ",i>What witnesses is he talking about?", Natalie might say there are no such witnesses, it is all a conspiracy theory lie. Or she might say they are paid "Bush Haters", Anti-Bush liars who have been brainwashed by Iranian terrorists?
come along now natalie, off your pathetic box and talk about something real, instead of calling people liars and denying they exist. ........................... WITNESSESPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-26 02:10:32

"Now Natalie starts talking about LSD? What nonsense is this? You now would mention drugs in connection with the names of entirely honest and respected men with no reason or context whatsoever. HOW DARE YOU."
This is how....
http://www.serendipity.li/pm_bio.html
"Who wrote a book Natalie?
Rabbit has not and he has at no stage written about GriffinPosted by Natalie on 2005-10-25 10:21:50

"Engineers, enough for you, doubting Nat?"
This is an example of YOUR illness....the inability to properly interpret information.
Bill Manning as far as I can find does not suspect that the WTC was intentionally demolished. He is concerned, and perhaps rightly so, that more investigation of the evidence wasn't done to determine exactly how the buildings collapsed.
He is concerned about other buildings that may have similar construction and not being able to find out which ones they are.
He is wary of the type of fireproofing they used in the WTC. He is suspicious that information is being withheld, not to hide a demolition plot, but to avoid liability from people finding out that improper fire protection measures may have been used in the WTC.
His full article in context:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAN309A.html
Another account:
http://tinyurl.com/7ehyq
We're still waiting for the name of preferably the structural engineer that believes the buildings were brought down by a deliberate demolition.Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-25 09:35:54

Yes Natalie, try and debunk
this source.
Engineers, enough for you, doubting Nat?
Rabbit is not finished pounding your spiteful little snippy thing, but you still feel free to talk about witnesses like Rodriguez and the Firemen who claim there were explosions, both before and after the planes hit.
Come on Nat, stop dissembling, make a claim and back it up.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-25 07:03:02

The letter continued.
Check the questions and sources too, can you answer them Natalie?
Questions for Amy Goodman (6/2004)
Dear Amy Goodman:
1. In David Ray GriffinPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-25 06:54:24

As a direct response to your Lousy inetrview with Griffin, is found the following.
This should sink your sieve.
Dear Amy Goodman:
We, the undersigned, would like to state that the recent (5/26/04) appearance of David Ray Griffin on
Democracy Now! (DN) repudiates every principle of press freedom that you claim to represent. It was a
shameful betrayal to the movements opposing the Bush( ) Regime around the globe.
First of all, it is very revealing that you chose to have Griffin appear on your show in a hostile Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-25 06:47:57

Who wrote a book Natalie?
Rabbit has not and he has at no stage written about Griffin's work or sources.
Griffin has written books but what has that to do with anything?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-25 06:06:22

Does it make any difference to the mass of facts presneted? Why should Rabbit use any time on such a petty liitle matter? What would it prove? Nothing. Even if there was no such strcutural engineer, natalie we have been through details which show it is not necessary even to understand such basic forces as those involved, it's in the detail Nat, not the messenger.
when Nat can actually face direct facts of consequence and not waste time on Red herrings like whetehr or not griffin had a structural engineer, maybe such questions would be worthy of more attention.
The simple truth is that the sum total of ALL the evidence and WITNESS testimony all point to the same conclusion. and Nat wants to discuss who did the report, who made the coffee. What significant difference does it make, Natalie, when SO MUCH of the official story is SO full of holes. Only one major hole is enough to destroy such a crazy pack of lies, and we have dozens.
Why would Nat want to spend pages and pages attcking the credibility of just one, out of so many people who make claims rather than actually consider the claims themselves in detail? and she will folks she has done it before,
Did you read the quote above which refers to people with your illness Natalie? People with HIV?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-25 06:04:39

"Your quote of the Griffin interview is a pretty naive attempt at propaganda. Did you think nobody noticed he merely did not have the information available at the time?"
Surely Rabbit knows the name of the structural engineer that Griffin can't seem to muster, putting aside the fact that he just got through writing an entire book on the subject.
What is that name, Rabbit? Can you help Griffin out?Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-25 01:36:06

Looks like Nat has resorted to guerilla tactics, hit and run.
Rabbit has been a bit sorry to have called Nat a whore, it would have been used in the same context to a man or mouse, but it was below the belt in a sexist way. It wasn't meant to be a description of Nat as of her tactics of debate, or not.
.......................................^>.........................Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-25 01:12:55

One man... urges assassination...of a foreign leader...Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-24 06:34:18

This guy has met you before Natalie.
Time and time again, when I come across close-minded Bush supporters, I witness the effects of an unexplainable phenomenon: a highly dangerous variation of HIV Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-24 04:26:35

If you want to discuss the graph results, then please join us on Partisan, but do so after having read the relevant postings since it was brought up by David Monk. It has fascinated Rabbit and he awaits for others to realise the true significanc eof what is a very interesting way of looking at an experimental analysis based on attidudes across a broader spectrum than normal Left - Right thinking can accomodate.
It would be interesting if Nat can use her mind for anything except avoidance and actually see the point Rabbit would like to share, but there, in context.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-24 02:40:45

A Commentary for Nat to look at.
Click it NATALIE, Rabbit has some new tricks.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-24 02:34:20

Rabbit guessed where you'd be on the political thing, you should see the discussion about it on Partisan thread, then you would understand that you are deluded and the graph proves it to anbody who can look objectively at it.
You are placed where you are, your stated politics is actually somewhere else altogether, because this is based upon delusions that it is more what you are.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-24 02:31:28

Your quote of the Griffin interview is a pretty naive attempt at propaganda. Did you think nobody noticed he merely did not have the information available at the time? Frankly Rabbit is surprised natalie is wasting time on such things as a single person, except that it is standard SHILL tactics to attack the person if they don't like what they are saying.
What facts are you questioning which have led to Griffin's conclusions Natalie, What are the facts which he has got wrong?
Not one will come, we will go round in circles, the dance of smoke and mirrors the vampire so delights in. Yet she claims no time, still she spreads her slime, for many many lines. Nothing but venon is said, and nothing of substance atempted. How about you use your precious time to get back to the simple facts which show that the buildings were brought down by explosives, actually we've done that.
We are now due to look at the witnesses who reported explosions in the towers, that is what you ran away from as Rabbit recalls.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-24 02:28:07

Now Natalie starts talking about LSD? What nonsense is this? You now would mention drugs in connection with the names of entirely honest and respected men with no reason or context whatsoever. HOW DARE YOU. What a sleazy trick, what a low down dirty act. What is your problem? You have been given some very substantially backed information which contradicts your views. That is a fact, go back and read about it if you have not, others have and they have had their say. You have so far got nothing on each of the ACTUAL facts we were avble to discuss.
You pulled out in the middle of a discussion which was going famously badly claiming time constraints, now you come back to the same emotive, and totally opinion based ranting which Rabbit has already broken you of once.
Debabe the critical facts in an orderly fashion, or face a serious whipping. Griffin doesn't make up any facts. He examined the reported and verifiable facts, like others and presents the findings. That is the end of that.
The findings can be challenged on the facts, but not at the man. Rabbit will find any number of experts and actual official documenst as necessary to prove anything he contends, no need to hold litlle innocent children up as a shield, or run and hide, or pretend you did read something when you did not.
LIAR. You are a big disapointment.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-24 02:17:56

No Natalie, the evidence is such that it is not irresponsible to call the US government complicit. It is irresponsible to defend them as it happens.
Griffin is not calling for the assaination of a democratically elected president, as is Chavez, he is calling for a "Proper and impartial investigation". He and many many others are saying the same things and it is not some crazy conspiracy theory. The crazy conspiracy theory is the one you adhere to and which ahs long since crumbled on this thread.
That makes your comparison of Robertson ridiculous. Natalie, what nonsense is this you come back with.
We shall be going back to facts and not wasting time with your emotional dishonest claptrap.
Your whole rant against the various internet sites you list who are but a few of thousands of sites reporting on the facts. the evidence was being dealt with Nat and you have so far established only that the official line is wrong. We have presented a wealth of information to show this and also to support certain basic theories. We have succeeded so far.
You are such a sleazy one are you not?
The points you are now questioning again have already been dealt with and you lost them, now you come back for a second round just like with the depleted Uranium. Natalie you are a SHILL you cannot debate fair, you cannot stick to the facts you can only keep repeating your crap. You are cornered with the truth, you disapear. you return and start all over again when the dust has settled.
You are a whore. a sad liitle whore. Rabbit is sorry to put it thus, but you really are the biggest coward and a most unsatisfactory debating partner. You cannot stick to the facts, you want only to branch out into bombastic proselytising.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-24 02:09:45

I'm not sure exactly what all the controversy is about the 30 foot columns. The towers were assembled from pretty much that length section, some more some less, and those same sections were found in the rubble pile. Here is an old movie showing how the towers were assembled. I'm afraid I don't understand what the mystery is supposed to be.
http://tinyurl.com/8jw9t
My political compass results put me just below the center intersection, whatever that might mean. I'm closer to Ghandi than Thatcher, so I suppose that's a plus in a lot of people's minds. Individual results are one thing, but isn't there a time for and a value to many different points of view? (not all, of course, sorry Stalin) The more people who would otherwise be pre-disposed to violence that can be influenced by a Ghandi approach, the better. But when it becomes necessary to confront those that can't, I'm thankful for a Thatcher. I suspect a Ghandi might secretly be thankful as well.Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-24 01:20:50

Now we've got ANOTHER theologian who couldn't be more at odds with the first in his theories about who the enemy is. Having seen both in action, I wouldn't conclude that David Ray Griffin is any LESS a "fundamentalist bully" than Pat Robertson, if we're allowed to broaden the definition a bit: "Having rigid adherence to principles and being intolerant of other views". One man irresponsibly urges assassination of a mildly murderous foreign leader, knowing that his remarks will be exploited by a hostile media to the thug's advantage. The other must be at least AS irresponsible in accusing his OWN government of deliberately murdering its OWN citizens, surely knowing his words amount to no less than a defense of Al Qaeda. (btw, a defense they likely don't appreciate....they seem pretty proud of what they pulled off that day)
Both men desperately want to persuade people as to their points of view. While one uses the Bible as his primary reference, the other has his own set of principles and guidelines as set forth by the prophets Rense, Jones and Meyer, the latter having had the benefit of hundreds of mind e x p a n d i n g experiences. (LSD) Perhaps the others have too; we don't want to sell them short.
Both expect you to take it on faith that their truth is the one to set you free. One explains that even though you've never seen God or any direct evidence for his existence, if you first simply have faith, and then repeat certain scriptures enough times, you will be forever saved. The other relies on your believing that the American government is essentially EVIL as a prerequisite. This, along with reading enough times on enough cheesy websites that the WTC was brought down by explosives in 10 seconds or less and the pentagon was hit by a missile or possibly an airliner flown by remote control, will make you finally able to understand who are the true "evil-doers".
After observing the complexities and precision of nature, I'm not confident enough to say there's no such thing as God -- but I have my doubts. However, the mere mortal happenings of 9/11 and the human tendency to believe some of the most far-out things if they happen to reinforce a world-view - even though they defy all common sense and logic - make me quite confident in my conclusion that 9/11 was indeed planned and executed exclusively by Al Qaeda.
This is not to say of course that agents of our government didn't have their suspicions and failed to take the necessary preventative action for whatever reasons. But one of those reasons was not, by all evidence and reason, that they somehow WANTED it to happen. It's reasonable to believe they may have "taken advantage" of the situation post hoc, but it's not reasonable to suspect beyond that. In fact, to make such inflammatory charges in the face of monumental evidence to the contrary is simply ... well ... irresponsible.
Here is a debate between Griffin and Chip Berlet, who is certainly no man of the right and along with Amy, no friend of the Bush admin. The fundamentalism of Griffin is too much even for them, and they "confront" him:
AMY GOODMAN: Can you name an expert you have relied on, for example on the issue of the world trade center towers going down, expert in structural engineering who has said it is impossible for the explanation to be the planes hit, and the fires caused the towers to go down?
DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: Well, again, I say I have got 40 pages of notes. I've got a lot of notes on that chapter, and so readers can go and see the --
GOODMAN: Name just one. Name just one structural engineering expert who said it is not feasible that the planes caused the towers to go down.
GRIFFIN: I'm sorry, I don't have that information at my fingertips right at this moment.
http://tinyurl.com/dkxjdPosted by Natalie on 2005-10-24 01:17:39

Dammit, something happened, this went on wrong thread, ...................................^^..............................Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-23 17:18:51

No the revised scores are where you would be if you were someone else.
The original answers were the most pure. Now for non-science minded people this may need to be explained, but to any scientific mind the answer is obvious.
You now know the test, the results and anything you do from here on to alter your original result is of absolutely NO use to the experiment. You are now 'contaminated', no longer a viable test subject.....be gone.
The experiment had a given set of criteria. The questions are applied to random subjects who have no preparation or knowledge of how the process is to proceed. Each subject gives his response under 'equal' conditions. This is the very critical isolation required to ensure true results.
All you are doing with the Strong answers or any other interference is altering the range. If you do it with any subject you will have to do it with THEM ALL. Which will only change the "RANGE" of comparison. You may move closer together in groups, but these will only be apparnet groupings, having lost the fine tuning in the ground between.
It is a simple logical argument, you cannot do what you are doing and call it a valid result. Rabbit KNOWS this, it is not an opinion. If anyone doubts this, Rabbit will scoff at their lack of scientific acumen, it is a clear cut thing.
By the way, has it not occurred to anyone that just because you answered something less strong the first time, that someone else would not have answered the strong one?
As it happens Rabbit's answers were almost all STRONGLY AGREE or STRONGLY DISAGREE. That was MY natural first response. So by changing your answers to a strong one everytime, just means you may be IMITATING Me or somebody else.
This is called logic, it is based on scientific principles and if WTH really has ANY Universtity Psychology behind him as claimed, then he must see this as clear as day as well.
You get one chance and unless you answered dishonestly the first time, this is IT. Everything after is TaintedPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-23 17:16:06

OM should be PM
Australian Prime Minister John Howard
Most Aussies doubt he is the father of his children, whoever they are, this is becase we don't believe he's ever had sex with Janet, his wife. ............................... He wouldn't be unfaithful to George.
Note the assumption of Arse licker in an article by even a conservative commentator from a couple years back.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-22 23:47:05

Sorry Rabbti meant columns not trusses.
In searching for information about the columns Rabbit has found a gem. OK so they are obviously a little over thirty feet some of them, point is they are there, described by engineers who cleaned up the site.
Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-22 23:16:32

WTH the small query of yours is valid, but jumping to conclusions about the answer is not. Let us seek an answer.
Griffin is well known and has a lot of credit for his books. He is not one but one of many who are writing such things and more. The fact of him being a theologian is of literally no consequence to rabbit or many other poeple, any suggestion that it is is ridiculous. What is the suggestion that some left wing conspiracy has selected such a man as a deliberate vehicle of misinformation or something?
Griffin happens to be one of the most sensible and simple approaches taken to the whole thing and he is one of Rabbit's favorites in this regard. It has been evidenced above that there is much much more behind Rabbit's understanding of 911.
Rabbit shall return with a comment about the 30 foot trusses, Natalie too mentioned them. The trusses are certainly in the plans for the WTCs. This was denied at the outset, but plans were mysteriously unavailable, being blocked I believe, but can't quite recall. They were eventually uncovered and showed up where the engineers said they should be. It is a fact that the building would have been incredibly unsafe, without them, but it would not have withstood the winds it had withstood before and nor could it have even passed an inspection, anyway, they were there, more later.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-22 22:53:50

But the point belongs to Rabbit.
En Garde, Whattheheck.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-22 21:26:25

wtc was a demolition. I knew that the day I saw it come straight down .
who did it ,and why are answers not yet arrived at.
We all have our suspects ,but we can't just point the finger without solid proof.
there is no shortage of people who would benefit from it.Posted by skullker on 2005-10-22 17:57:25

Just step back a bit here WTH and don't make too much of a case on one seeming contradiction. We're still trying to assess, everything considered, what the big picture converges on. It is a valid, don't you think, to question why the government would have arranged to have the debris 'immediately' hauled away, and disposed of out of the country, before legitimate investigators had a routine and normal chance to inspect the remains to determine what had occurred? Do is make sense? What might it suggest?
I believe there were those who reported having seen discrete segments of beams, but I have less that a masterful command of all these various sites. 'But if you're searching for the truth you could research it. We all need to be doing that. There's more at stake here than "Rah!, Rah!... for my team." What good is it to pretend to prevail if the truth is obscured?Posted by whit on 2005-10-22 17:45:16

Touche, Whattheheck. Touche.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-22 15:58:12

Rabbit,
OK I went to the Dr. Griffin account you included and there is no doubt the WTC was an inside job done with the cooperation of the U.S. government.
http://www.rense.com/general68/caseforWTCtower.htm
Case For WTC Tower
Demolition Sealed By Griffin
Theologian Says Controlled Demolition
is Now a Fact, Not a Theory
It even says right there in the title Posted by whattheheck on 2005-10-22 13:08:37

In two speeches to overflow crowds in New York last weekend, notable theologian David Ray Griffin argued that recently revealed evidence seals the case that the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were destroyed by controlled demolition with explosives. Despite the many enduring mysteries of the 9/11 attacks, Dr. Griffin concluded, "It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."The rest of the storyPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-22 01:31:20

Whit
You so often speak Rabbit's heart for him and he will own all you say. Rabbit always hopes that these discussions will be mutually honest voyages of discovery.
This thread never really did gain a serious opposition. the facts was that the context was always too real and thus untouchable by mere faith based argument. Rabbit always knew this would be anathema to the GOD Squad, and was not surprised to see them all fall so quickly. Admittedly those who came were not true God Squad, but they held the same views which was always the most telling to those of us watching the overall pattern of the discussion.
Indeed the subjects have been contrived largely, but no less valid for that. The idea Rabbit sought was to put FAITH BASED argument up against factual argument and like all good ideas it has grown out from here and given force to other efforts.
Natalie may yet return, Rabbit thinks she loves him at least. Rabbit loves Natalie too, which is why he'd like to see her take the Political Graph test.
Natalie may be a Shill or she may yet be a person who can be re-awakened, it is worth trying and Rabbit has learned some things from her of worth, there is bound to be more.
One thing is for sure, the 911 case is one hell of an easy one to fight. They just crumble when faced with the amount of evidence. We didn't even touch the important issues, and the act of trying to introduce them to the discussion was enough to shut down the discussion.
WOW
Rabbit is waiting for an approriate thread, who will dare bring up 911 at this stage of the game?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-21 18:20:28

Natalie, come back.
There is a test we would like you to take.
Please let us know your results. We want to help make you well.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-21 10:23:29

What good does that do them if they are mostly wrong?
Indeed... Rabbit. It seems that in the service of the fragile ego people are willing to destroy themselves (insanity is alway based upon the avoidance of legitimate suffering) and others (onto whom they have projected what they cannot own about themselves).
Looks like this thread is dying out, doesn't it Rabbit?
Whatever happened to Natalie?
Perhaps this thread has run its course, with no where else to go. No where else, that is, that the Nat and Jay types would dare to venture... far away from their well-beaten paths and heavily reinforced comfort zones.
That sounds a bit arrogant, I suppose. The truth is, I am saddened. Sad that such a deliberation couldn't actually have been a mutually honest discovery voyage, and not just some right vs wrong pissing contest (it was more than that, actually).
They say that rabbits are highly 'productive' (reproductive, I guess) And you have certainly been amazingly productive in you contributions/participation in this exchange. Your efforts are appreciated.Posted by whit on 2005-10-21 09:25:15

Mouse:
Why cannot people face the truth about 911?
Rabbit:
They would have to change all their ideas to allow for such a fundamental error of judgement..Mouse.
Mouse:
Is that all? Even Mouse can afford to change all his ideas.
Rabbit:
Yes mouse, but you don't have many ideas to change after all.................... People have lots more ideas than a mouse.
Mouse:
What good does that do them if they are mostly wrong?
Rabbit:
Rabbit does not know, Mouse.............. Rabbit does not know.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-20 20:55:58

They are the pricks too, and they are not that hard to kick, Rabbit will keep kicking the PRICKS. HOWARD and BUSH were of course right there in the thick of it, they are both A*seholes and they are both Pricks. Therefore anybody in that field is both. Deluded? Of course they are bloody deluded, that is what makes them a*seholes and pricks. Self imposed delusions, WILLFUL IGNORANCE is not a defence, it is the CRIME.
Not up to Rabbit's usual standard of logic, but why should one be excessively logical about wacking illogical creatures?
Wow Whit, Rabbit is impressed. Rabbit was personally a bit dissapointed about his ratings, being even a bit right of Ghandi.
Whit you are way out there in the big numbers. You should be an Anarcho-Socialist too, you could be our king, if we had kings, which we don't of course.
Anarcho-Socialists do not have kings.
You can be a respected elder, a radical sage.
..........................................^^.................................Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-20 01:05:43

" Anyone in the top right quadrant is an a*shole. "
Please forgive my forgiving nature but maybe they are only deluded assholes. On the road to Damascus. And it is hard for them to kick against the pricks.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-19 23:05:53

My political compass readings:
Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.08
...nearest to Gandhi, which pleases me. Gandhi possessed great strenght of character, courage, integrity, honesty, and compassion. However, while my 'positions' may be similarly aligned, I cannot claim to be of the same high character.Posted by whit on 2005-10-19 22:17:28

David says:
"there is no right or wrong result"
Anyone in the top right quadrant is an a*shole.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-19 22:12:34

In case readers and commenters have not seen it on more recent threads :
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Luminous Beauty linked this on another thread and it is apt for this thread as well.
Some difficult questions, no fence to sit on. Polarizing but effective. Avoid knee jerk reactions unless knee jerk reactions are the reactions you actually have. hehe. I am usually skeptical / disdainful of Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-19 20:07:37

Natalie : "(warning:good news)"
" Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! " Isaiah 5:20Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-19 19:51:10

Just because you say you would have resisted Nazism, does not make it so.
We are people who would have and do resist Fascism, if we say you are a NAZI, then you probably are. You would have been arguing for the Fuerer and the glorious third reich Natalie, and that is an absolute given..
Your soul is sold now, it would have been then.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-19 18:23:20

That last post should read, of course, WITHOUT U.S. government and CIA backing...Posted by whit on 2005-10-19 10:04:48

Natalie,
The U.S. M/I corporacracy is very Machiavelian is its manner of operating. It's ironic that in all the demonizing of Saddam and using his ruthless brutality as a justification for OUR military takeover of Iraq and its oil fields, one truly important, pertinent piece is left out of the big picture: With U.S. government and CIA backing Saddam would have never come to power or have been able to be the evil bastard that he was. When Saddam's army were gassing the Kurds U.S. military "advisors" were providing coordinates for them. Saddam, our EX-ally was a creature of the CIA. Now HE is going to trial. But what about those who brought him to power, and used him as a pawn in the deadly game of controlling the world's oil resources?
Of course, the Iraqi people deserved something better than Saddam. And they deserve something better than what the U.S. has done and is doing to them now.
Hitler, too, was just ridding the world of evil and making it a better, more glorious place. Many were those who had faith in him, and you should explore who they were.Posted by whit on 2005-10-19 10:01:56

Part #2
Here in the United States, despite political support and billions of dollars in weaponry, military training and economic assistance to Jakarta over the preceding four decades, Washington's role in Indonesia's killing fields of 1965-66 and subsequent brutality has been effectively buried. Such "forgetting" has translated into a lack of accountability for U.S. complicity in these crimes, while enabling the Bush administration's current efforts to further ties with Indonesia's military, as part of the global "war on terror."
The continuation of this dangerous alliance, and the impunity that underlies it, can only lead to further atrocities--in Indonesia and elsewhere--as it has for the last forty years.
Joseph Nevins is an assistant professor of geography at Vassar College and author of A Not-so-distant Horror: Mass Violence in East Timor (Cornell University Press, 2005).Posted by whit on 2005-10-19 09:40:43

One example of hundreds, Ms. Natalie:
Part #1
40 Years of Living Dangerously
by Joseph Nevins
The recent horrific bombings in Bali should not obscure a far larger, institutionalized Indonesia-associated set of horrors. It was born forty years ago this month when the Indonesian army initiated what the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency described as "one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century." Four decades later, the failure to hold anyone accountable for the slaughter--or, in places like the United States, even to remember it--continues to have negative repercussions for human rights.
Under Major General Suharto's leadership, the army and its civilian militia groups used an alleged coup attempt on October 1, 1965 as an excuse to round up and kill hundreds of thousands of members of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI), and of loosely affiliated organizations such as women's groups and labor unions.
Despite the magnitude of the carnage, Marshall Green, American ambassador to Indonesia at the time, wrote that the embassy had "made clear" to the army that Washington was "generally sympathetic with and admiring" of its actions.
U.S. support for the killings was rooted in Washington's longstanding wish to have unimpeded access to Southeast Asia's great wealth of strategic resources such as oil, rubber, and tin. World War II, the disruption of European colonial rule, and the emergence of the United States as the post-war regional power provided the opportunity to realize that desire.
But new obstacles arose when the Sukarno government emerged upon independence in Indonesia--the country many in Washington saw as the region's centerpiece. Sukarno's domestic and foreign policy was nationalist, nonaligned, and critical of Western intervention. Moreover, his government had a working relationship with the powerful PKI, which Washington feared would eventually win national elections. For these reasons the Eisenhower administration conducted covert operations to destabilize Indonesia, efforts that culminated in 1965-66 with the PKI's eradication and Sukarno's effective overthrow.
U.S. policy had helped lay the groundwork for the killings through support for anti-communist elements of the military, and intelligence operations aimed at weakening the PKI and drawing it into conflict with the army. So when the army began the killings, the Johnson administration supplied it with weaponry and telecommunications equipment, and, once Suharto had formally assumed power, provided food and other aid. The U.S. Embassy also gave the names of thousands of PKI cadre who were subsequently executed.
The PKI's destruction and Sukarno's ouster resulted in a dramatic shift in the regional power equation, leading Time magazine to hail Suharto's takeover as "The West's best news for years in Asia." Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy League's publication gushed over Indonesia's new role in Southeast Asia as "that strategic area's unaggressive, but stern, monitor."
Ten years later, Suharto's "unaggressive" Indonesia invaded neighboring East Timor after receiving permission from the Ford administration. The war and almost 24-year illegal occupation cost tens of thousands of East Timorese lives. Within Indonesia proper, Jakarta's military has committed myriad additional atrocities--from killing tens of thousands in independence-seeking West Papua to thousands more in the oil-rich Aceh region.
With Suharto's resignation in 1998, significant political space has opened up in Indonesia resulting in competitive national elections, but the armed forces still loom large over the state apparatus. And no military or political leaders have been held responsible for the post-Sukarno-era crimes, thus increasing the likelihood of future atrocities and aggression--a source of continuing worry for Indonesia's civil society and restless regions, as well as poverty-stricken, now-independent East Timor.Posted by whit on 2005-10-19 09:40:09

Nat the polular mechanics article "MADE UP" the conspiracy theory they attacked about the engine part. This was as said one of their tactics. Address some small part of another theory while ignoring the overall theory and "ALL" the evidence which led to it.
The Popular Mechanics article was a hit piece and as such it was HISTORICALLY unsuccessful.
Now WITNESSES Natalie, how does Popular Mechanics account for witnesses? Of course it doesn't and Rabbit is looking forward to Natalie explaining how William Rodriguez experienced what he did. Rabbit feels we should establish absolutely that the WTC's were brought down with explosives. This is the biggest smoking gun, because it has been BLATANTLY covered up and because it would have required considerable setting up as well as the removal of BOMB sniffing dogs from the WTCs.
The bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the WTC the week before the attacks as it happens. What a co-incidence...........
A couple of flatbed trucks were used to remove all that GOLD BULLION which was in the WTCs just before the attacks too. What a co-incidence. Luckily they got all that gold out, just in the nick of time. There are lots of fascinating co-incidences like this, shall we examine them and speculate about them being possibly MORE than mere co-incidence?
Do you feel good about supporting the greatest criminals in world history?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-18 17:44:38

Rabbit is a man first an Australian second.
I will not follow a corrupt and evil cause even if is has my country's name on it. Natalie is not a good person to those who are wondering how she can support the things she does. We know already that she is an apologist for using Depleted Uranium, ignoring the risks to US troops and she is absolutely un-interested in the effects on the civilian population.
Do not mistake her as being merely mis-informed, she answers by saying simply that DU is no more dangerous than lead and killing innocents is justified if the government says it is. She has argued using blatant tactics of SHILLdom, this is not just a deluded ditto-head here. Rabbit knows Nat and she is a Vampire. A practising follower of Dark Arts.
Notice the issues she chooses to defend are all acts of inhumanity. Some of these issues are those that even dittoheads avoid, knowing they have no chance. Not Nat, she is under orders.
Nat Rabbit is only becoming angry with you for bringing little innocent children into this discussion in the first place. The exmples you blatantly used did not and do not support your cause, they are damning witnesses against it.
It looks like someone holding up a child as a human shield. So stop it and Rabbit will stop biting. Rabbit is a father and he cannot accept you using the children you are arguing in favor of poisoning and killing, as some sort of "emotional" stunt. Ok you have poisoned and bombed the babies. You have killed their mother and allowed their father to be incarcerated without rights or charges and to be tortured.
Now you want us to feel somehow that these children are a witness to something you are doing right!
THE BANALITY OF EVIL.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-18 17:34:01

Wonder if the kids killed by the F15 attack on Monday were the same ones who were playing hopefully in the streets on referendum day.
"Baghdad - A U.S. fighter jet bombed a crowd gathered around a burned Humvee on the edge of a western provincial capital, killing 25 people, including 18 children, hospital officials and family members said Monday".
"Fuad said the dead included his 4-year-old son, Saad Ahmed Fuad, and his 8-year-old daughter, Haifa Ahmed Fuad.
Fuad said he was unable to find one of his 8-year-old daughter's legs, and had to bury her without them.
Another boy, 6-year-old Muhammed Salih Ali, was buried in a plastic bag after relatives collected what they believed to be parts of his body, mourners said."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/101805J.shtml
Lets hope thosekids had a feeling of hope for the future before a BIG US bomb came and took away their future.
Do you know how to make Rabbit a Suicide Bomber? Kill his children like this.
Go to Hell anybody who supports this ILLEGAL and IMMORAL invasion. You have done nothing right, you are making it worse and your army is good for nothing. They cannot fight modern wars even when they break all the rules.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-18 17:14:42

Good advice, David. I considered this myself after my submitted writing was AGAIN sent off into cyberspace instead of posted on our forum.
... Not to mention word processing first and then pasting the finished product for posting would provide a better chance of identifying and correcting my many confusing errors and mispellings.
Thanks!Posted by whit on 2005-10-18 16:07:00

PS
Natalie:
What Bush and Blair have done to Iraq isn't new. It's called an illegal war of aggression and a Crime Against the Peace, the "supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
Nazis were hanged in 1946 for the exact same offense.
"According to Oil Ministry officials, contracts will be signed with foreign oil companies during the first nine months of 2006, opening the majority of Iraq's oilfields to western companies for the first time in 33 years. (...) Thus the policy potentially allocates to foreign companies 64% of known reserves. If a further 100 billion barrels are found, as is widely predicted, the foreign companies would control 81% of the total, and if 200 billion were found, as some suggest, they would have 87%."
--Iraq Constitution Lays Ground for Oilfield Sell-Off, globalpolicy.orgPosted by johndoraemi on 2005-10-18 15:39:38

Latest:
Fake Terror War Ramps Up
Crimes of the State
crimesofthestate.blogspot.com
Coinciding with Bush's big "War on Terror" speech, we have a subway threat HOAX that pushed further police state intrusions into New York City's subway system, followed by this new purported letter from "al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi."
But not even the alleged terrorists on the receiving end of it think it's real. These are strange times.
Let's see if we can make sense of this letter/non-letter. On John Negroponte's website (Mr. death-squads-don't-exist), we have the summary of points allegedly made by al-Zawahiri, yet rejected as "fake" by the possibly fictional organization "Al Qaeda in Iraq."
CONTINUED:
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
See also:
British Chief Police Investigator in Basra dies under mysterious circumstances
He was responsible for the investigation into the two Elite SAS men disguised as Arab "terrorists"
by Michel Chossudovsky
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20051017&articleId=1100Posted by johndoraemi on 2005-10-18 15:34:55

Whit, a word of advice. When typing up a lengthy post do it on WordPad or some such. You can copy and paste it and repeat it if the post doesn't go through.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-18 11:28:20

"It is a tribute to the human brainPosted by David in Canada on 2005-10-18 11:25:37

I can't for the life of me really understand how folks like Natalie can on the one hand be so cynical about any transparent and public use of government to actually improve the lives of its citizens, and on the other have such blind faith in the opaque and secretive National Security State.
It is a tribute to the human brain's robust ability to sustain levels of cognitive dissonance one could reasonably infer would cause it to explode.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-18 10:49:28

Arghh!
My #1 post, an extensive bit of writing, didn't make it to the forum when I submitted it. Man, that is frustrating. Screw it!
Nat, just give some thought to Luminous Beauty's post. Okay? You seem to have little realistic knowledge and understanding of U.S. foreign policy, military intervention, and CIA activity.
You would be mistaken, Natalie, to think that I do NOT have a love and high regard for my own nation and people. I do. 'And I have a very high regard for the founding ideals of this nation... they were truly enlightened.
My arguments with derive out of my desire to protect, preserve, and promote those ideals.
The principles laid out by our founders were devised primarily to protect our institutions from corruption from within, rather than threats from without. Freedom requires vigilance. Despots have long known that the best way to get 'the people' to take their eyes off of the ball is to 'provide' a exciting threat from without... real or imagined. The inviting lantern to the world is becoming a glaring policeman's spotlight.
Patriotism is more than uncritical acceptance of and faith in anything your government does or tells you. I make take more than some PollyAnnish devotion, little plastic flags on you car, and keeping your head tucked securely in the dark place to determine a happy ending to the American story.
Our nation is badly off track, and you would do well to try to make some rational discernments about just what the intentions and motivations of military-industrial, corporate-sponsored government actually are.Posted by whit on 2005-10-18 10:28:15

# 2
The neo-cons had an agenda focused on taking over Eastern oil resources in place for many, many years before 9-11. In their own writings they explained that some type of "new Pearl Harbor" would be necessary to gain public support (financing) of such plans.
Yes, it is true that the whole truth may have been purposely kept secret. No one disputes that the current administration is the least transparent, the most secretive, and likely the most deceptive in our history.
And if the administration was deliberately negligent or complicit in the events of 9-11 it would indeed 'make a certain amount of sense that they might try to keep it secret'.
It is a stretch to claim that the U.S. has never sought to expand its territory. Are you in a stupor? We committed genocide to steal this country from the Indians who lived here. I remember something about Texas once being part of Mexico, etc.
But, to be modern, let's just admit that the U.S. has spent a good bit of its public monies on a military that is spread throughout hundreds of bases across the world (who has done more military intervention than the U.S.)and on intelligence agencies who meddle in every body's business, sometimes in some very nasty ways.
Let's just say that our corporate-sponsored government has sought to expand its power, its control, its influence, and its GREED throughout the world.
It is not YOU, Natalie, that I rail against. Break out of the illusion! The military-industrial oligarchy that the government serves does NOT represent your ideals either. But it must work at keeping you enthralled to continue to pursue pursue it own greedy, selfish ends.
True, much of the world envies what we have. We have 5% of the world's population and comsume over half of its resources. They want a piece of that... and freedom from concrete cruelties of repressive governments (sometimes sustained by the U.S.)and material hardships (sometimes resulting from the impact of U.S. economic policies). Yet have you ever wondered why so much of the world has a negative opinion of the U.S. regarding it foreign policies? Are you aware of the mis-match between our self-image and how the rest of the world sees the U.S. and feels about it?Posted by whit on 2005-10-18 09:43:52

Natalie:
There is an old African-American saying that might apply to the Iraqis; been down so long, it looks like up to me. They are hopeful that things will get better because things couldn't get much worse. As for the American left, the life of ordinary Americans could get a lot worse. Not much sign of things turning around before we tumble over the cliff created by our collective hubris. But we aren't packing it in, either.
I'm happy for you that you are so idealistic about our government. It does seem you have a bit of a blind spot when you say we protect people from fanatics. We protect corporate business interests, and those oligarchic sycophants in foriegn countries who profit from US exploitation of their resources. (Can you say 'satrapy', Nat?) Folks like Anastasio Somoza, Augusto Pinochet, the Saud family, the Amir Sabah of Kuwait, Roberto d'Aubuisson, Efrain Rios Mont, Papa and Baby Doc Duvalier, Fernand Marcos, Reza Shah Pahlevi and other great heroes of the people. Did I forget Manny Noriega and Saddam Hussein, both insinuated into power by the CIA. No, I didn't. Then there's all the funny business with the drug trade from Air America to Eugene Hassenfus. Why exactly has the opium business blossomed so under our stewardship of Afghanistan? Hail, Columbia!Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-18 07:05:37

Try and have a look at this girl's views, she is from Mosul, and has become more and more dissapointed with what is happening to her country.
http://astarfrommosul.blogspot.com/
Take note of the exceptional reasoning and common sense of these people. Read some of River's earlier postings Nat, get a feel for the position these girls, not much different from you are in.
These are two of those supposed Muslim Extremists. You will see from theirs and others' blogs how they are gradually being radicalised, maybe not River, she is an Angel, but the other sweetie is younger and you can see that she will be typical of many.
Such a rod you are maikng for your back, by making these proud and brave people hate you.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-18 06:10:30

The following is by an Iraqi woman.
"Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-18 06:03:15

Natalie just a short one for now it is late and Rabbit will have more time tomorrow.
Just to clarify you don't know what Rabbit thinks exactly happened to flight 93, or any motives, for I have not said anything about it. Rabbit is of the opinion that it was probably shot down, on the orders of somebody who was defying his superiors. As mentioned before the authority to shoot down a civilian airliner had belonged to Rank of General until about a month before 911 if my info is correct. Such an officer may have exceeded his authority, but for entirely good reasons as you have indicated. Rabbit fully understands why it would have been shot down and in fact they should all have been shot down, there was time and that was what was meant to happen under such circumstances. It is believed that Bush and crew were expecting Capitol Hill to go up, things were in place for it.
That is to say the whole thing was meant to go a step further. Rabbit shall see if he can locate the info which led to this conclusion.
There seems liitle doubt that the Jet broke up in midair though and the sort of things, papers, bodies etc which were falling out, do suggest a serious explosion onboard.
Due to the niggling questions of consistency and various details already covered I don't believe there is enough evidence to conclude that there was a fight onboard. There is evidence to conclude that someone wanted this to be believed, but the calls don't add up, that is significant since the calls are the only things which suggest there was a fight.
It is not of itself the most important detail of the day. It is important though and Rabbit will look further at what there is about possible shootdown.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-18 06:02:37

As for Iraq, I'm disappointed at all the unrelenting negativity. Since the overthrow, the Iraqis have consistently expressed great hope for their future, usually in the neighborhood of 70% thinking their lives will be much better in 5 years. I'm sure if you took a poll at moveon.org or democraticunderground, you'd be lucky to get seven.
Talk to me in five years, maybe longer, about Iraq. It took America much longer than that to iron out all its disagreements and settle on a constitution. Transforming from a brutal dictatorship to a society where the average citizen has a little power of his own cannot be easy. Perhaps the Bush administration at one time wrongly thought it would be.
http://tinyurl.com/9ahaj
(warning: good news)Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-18 02:10:38

Rabbit,
After further analysis, I must concede that there is a compelling case to be made that the explanation put forth in official reports for the complete cause of the crash of flight 93 is incomplete, and that the whole truth may even have been purposefully kept secret.
I was unaware of the complete debris field story. After learning fully of it thanks to your explanation / links, in addition to other sources, I feel I must apologize for jumping to my conclusion regarding Popular Mechanics and the engine story. Although they may have addressed and debunked one peripheral "conspiracy" claim, that an engine or engine part was found much further away from the crash site than actually was the case, they failed to address the complete debris field story, and so can properly be criticized for indeed putting forth a straw-man argument in this particular case.
This does not, however, negate my previously stated belief that there was a revolt on board, which is evident from several independent recordings and communications. I am willing to accept the possibility that there was, in addition to this activity, other influences that contributed to the crash. Also the possibility that the passengers may have indeed been successful in taking back the cockpit only to find themselves up against an F-16. Yes, this would lead to the inescapable conclusion that the government in this case has lied to us. Or LIED, as you prefer to put it.
Of course it's difficult or impossible to know for sure exactly what happened, just as it often is to determine the exact elements that led to an ordinary car wreck. Perhaps the plane suffered some kind of breach due to stress from the erratic maneuvers employed by the terrorists. There is an report of a passenger mentioning a gun in one of his communications with his wife. A shot fired into the floor might have caused a breach in the lower section carrying mail.
Where we differ fundamentally, though, is in our beliefs about motivations. If they did shoot it down, it seems to me that their motivation for doing so was honorable. It also makes a certain amount of sense that they might try to keep it secret, given the mood of the nation at the time. (I would have advised them to be honest about it, if for some inexplicable reason they had asked me.) If they did shoot it down, they did it to save untold numbers of lives on the ground or in buildings (remember, possibilities at the time for WTC deaths were upwards of 50,000) and prevent further destruction to our already severely damaged institutions.
A shoot-down and its being kept secret, if it did indeed happen, makes sense and is consistent with what I have come to know about America, which is that it's actions are generally well-intentioned. It is inarguably the most benevolent world power in the history of the planet, while still being made up of human beings and subject to not being perfect. It's never sought to expand its territory, although it certainly could if it wanted to. It's sacrificed hundreds of thousands of its own lives and expended billions of dollars defending ordinary citizens all over the globe (and itself of course) against the selfish ambitions of a few extraordinary maniacs. People die trying to come here and are always free to leave, but few choose to. If not for the U.S. and the U.S. military especially, I shudder to think what a dark and hopeless place this world most probably would be.
This is why I concur with your skepticism about flight 93, and strongly dissent from your theories about the deliberate demolition of our symbols and instruments of free-market economic superiority, and missiles being intentionally fired into our own five-sided fortresses. These theories are inconsistent with common sense, and inconsistent with what I know America to be all about. Keep pursuing them if you wish; you'll be wasting countless hours.Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-18 02:09:00

Good article on Iraq David. Rabbit has just finished reading your previous source. One seee a few good pieces on the WSW site.
This quote:
"These provisions written into the draft at WashingtonPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-18 00:29:30

Here is another sad story you should read Natalie.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0331-08.htm
Seems that things are worse for Iraqi children since the war.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-17 22:59:12

There is nothing positive in that story about Iraqi children. It is nothing but a blatant emotional piece. So some kids get a few hours to play safely in the streets. Not as safely as they were able before their country was invaded of course. In a few hours they will be in danger of being accidently or intentioanlly bombed by Co-alition forces or Iraqi Puppet troops. They will be at risk of being blown up by roadisde bombs set by insurgents as well as false flag ops by co-alition forces, a now proven fact.
The election they have just held has brought Iraq even closer to a Muslim fundamentalist regime, something the IDIOTS cheering from the USA are yet to wake up to. So exactly what is the point of such a comparison Natalie and any other apologists for the illegal invasion?
Those same kids didn't matter to you yesterday, while you were starving their country of food and medicines, they didn't matter to you when you decided to spread Nuclear waste, Depleted Uranium all over their country. Those same kids won't matter to you tomorrow when they will be once again reduced to collateral damage.
So F*CK OFF WITH YOUR HYPOCRITICAL CRAP.
Rabbit loves and cares for those MUSLIM Children as all children, yesterday, today and tomorrow................. they are nothing to you but a symbol to be used and then discarded. Have a read up on how the hospitals are being wrecked by the US and Puppet troops, Children injured by "your weapons" are being refused help at hospitals because troops are demanding first treatment.
The abuses of human rights just go on and on. You answer it with a Fairy tale picture of Bambi like fantasy.
Nat you are at heart a Rat.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-17 22:10:34

Quoting Natalie : " It occurs to me that the Iraqis, even after all theyPosted by David in Canada on 2005-10-17 20:46:48

That's not a marketing thing Natalie, why always so cynical. It is meant as a courtesy when Rabbit posts thus and it is taken as one when you do also.
No apologies necessary and it is not a concession. So long as you pick up the ESSENTIAL matter of important facts, eg: Witnesses, upon your anticipated return.
Rabbit will miss Nat, but will find something to do in the emantime, have no fear. Stay safe and TRY to be good.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-17 18:38:25

The suspense is making me crazy.
OK. Crazier.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-17 16:39:52

Rabbit,
I've got somewhat of a concession and somewhat of an apology to make to you.
I don't have time right now, but will continue ASAP.
I can do the marketing thing too, see? ;-)Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-17 10:10:15

Whit
Nat would tell you that the only way to know if someone will welcome you with love and flowers when you bomb them, is to bomb them.
Then if that didn't work make a movie with some actors handing over some flowers and making a speech.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-17 00:46:02

Ah ha sorry I see now. Yes it did happen then as you say. Rabbit will also look to tiny.urls, at least for long ones, especially as Nat suggested them.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-16 21:51:08

'And based upon what evidence, Natalie, would you presume to speak for the Iraqi people.
I for one think that we should let THEM decide whether they want to be occupied by American military forces or not. Do you really think they are all happy about being cluster-bombed and having the infastructure on their country destroyed and possibly 100s of thousands of innocent civilians killed, or incarcerated and abused. Do you think our government would abide by the will of the Iraqi people? Everything I've read about actual legitimate attempts to assess overall Iraqi opinion on this matter indicates they want the occuppying forces OUT. But perhaps you know best.Posted by whit on 2005-10-16 21:32:18

Natalie, Thanks for pointing out tinyurl.com.
So here is the the SF Gate - Morford article on a tiny, new and improved url.
http://tinyurl.com/79fhe
Easy.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-16 20:45:40

Rabbit
Here is the problem. I tried to use both links you posted above. They both brought me to :
SF Gate Item Not Found
The article or page you requested was not found. If this link was sent to you via e-mail or posted on another website, it was probably incorrectly formatted.
If the link that gave you the error appeared on one of SF Gate's pages, please mail us and let us know at webmaster@sfgate.com.
Here is why.
Look at this portion of your cut & paste from above :
/gate/archive e/2005/10/12
See the space between archive and e. It should not be there. Neither should the e after the space that shouldn't be there.
As Natalie said might be happening. It seems that when a continuous stream of letters, numbers and /?= that make up a link are longer than the width of the box, the box that I am typing into right now, the electrons get confused and add arbitrary spaces and occasionally duplicate another character.
So there !! Gremlin electrons indeed.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-16 20:40:05

Monk
Pay attention.
Rabbit went to your SFGate site. Found the article and merely copy shrtcut off the link to the page. Here it is pasted:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/10/12/notes101205.DTL
-------------------------------------------
This one is copied from the Address bar after opening the link from the main page, you will see it is the same:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/10/12/notes101205.DTL
------------------------------------------------
Copy and paste either of those addresses as they are and they will take you to the place.
Natalie probably won't be able to learn so much so quickly, we are still working on comprehension of Gravity in her case, but she might want to see if this simple and typically direct Rabbit route doesn't have something to say for it.
Rabbit is becoming bored by the whole "I can't get the thing to work" gig. Rabbit as a technician tells you all to stop being silly, figure out what makes the thing work and do that......................................Stern look more than an actual foot Stamp!.......................^^.............................Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-16 20:04:29

Then reverse the process to use the link from site? Sincerely Rabbit has no problems either way, most of the time.
Rabbit is seeking comments from anybody who can find anything WHATSOEVER, which challenges WTC Janitor Rodriguez' story. Several searches have yielded NOTHING. Can it really be true that they have not mounted any sort of defence to his story? God help him and the other witnesses because they surely don't intend to allow this to get to court. They must be appalled at the thought of Rodriguez testifying in open court.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-16 19:54:20

Are you folks copying the address bar for the link?
Then pasting it on the comment window?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-16 19:47:35

Natalie, the Rabbit is a liitle bored and so has decided to crush your last post like a Grape.
Theory 1 - It blew there (The NTSB/FBI Story).
Comment: Wind speed that day was 9 knots (or 10.4 MPH). Video from that morning shows a very light breeze.
The NTSB theory is that a lot of lightweight paper-like material survived the crash fireball and escaped the 35 foot deep, wet mud crash site and floated at 10 mph 2 - 8 miles over more wet, muddy fields. And how did clothing, books and large engine parts blow there again? And is there stuff 2 to 8 miles away at the Pentagon crash? Or another crash you can think of? Oh yea, at Lockerbie and Flight 800 there was (both had in-air explosions).
Remember, the debris is NOT continuous. They didn't even have a clue the secondary debris existed until phone calls from residents brought skeptical investigators looking. If this debris was heavier than feathers it would not have floated from an explosion the height of 600 feet to 11,000+ feet sideways. Even if it could, there would have been a continuous trail back to the crash with the heavier items falling first. Remember, all the debris at the crash crater bounced South and Southwest. The secondary debris is East in the direction of, and beyond, Indian Lake.
Indian Lake is where witnesses heard the airliner fly over, and saw debris falling from the sky moments after the crash. If the debris floated from the crash site, it would have taken 10-15 minutes at 10 mph to get there.
Flight 427 is another airliner that crashed intact and ALSO had debris found 2.5 miles away. We can try to compare it's debris field with that of Flight 93. From the 427 report in 1999:
Several lightweight items (for example, pieces of interior insulation and a passenger business card) were discovered as far as 2Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-16 19:32:48

Anyway, it is established that debris was found at least 8 miles from the crsh site of flight 93. No? OK Some more.
It's important to recall that every description of the main crash site is that the airplane was OBLITERATED. Very small debris was spread over a couple hundred yards. This is exactly what you'd expect to see when an Airliner impacts nearly vertically as Flight 93 did. Nothing survived this impact... yet a 1000lb fan was found elsewhere. It fell off before impact, just like Flight 587's engine that was found basically intact did.
John Fleegle, an Indian Lake Marina employee, said FBI agents were skeptical of his reports about debris in the lake [2.5 miles away from main crash site]
... said he climbed on the roof of an abandoned cabin and tossed down a burning seat cushion that had landed there. (Archived at http://library.triblive.com - search burning seat cushion from 9-10-01 to 9-20-01 or read it here. It's unclear exactly how far this seat cushion is from the primary crater.)
Pennsylvania state police officials said on Thursday debris from the plane had been found up to 8 miles (13 km) away in a residential community where local media have quoted residents as speaking of a second plane in the area and burning debris falling from the sky. http://investor.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-7147291-0.html
Actually the whole official theory always had the feel of a Warner Brothers Production from the start.
Rabbit knows you are going to try and prove that it wasn't metal found 8-miles away because there are a number of reports of the same things which differ slightly as is normal in the media. In the end there is no way paper or metal or body parts, could have travelled even a few miles in the times allowed. You see most of the debris from the flight was seen within a minute or so of the plane flying over. Notice one of the reports includes a second plane, sure enough it is the earliest sighting I think.
http://www.geocities.com/killtown/flight93.htmlPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-16 19:17:51

This is your guy Natalie, even your own witnesses working against your theory.
In a morning briefing, state Police Major Lyle Szupinka confirmed that debris from the plane had turned up in relatively far-flung sites, including the residential area of Indian Lake. Investigators appealed to any residents who had come across such debris, in the surrounding countryside or even in their yards, to contact them, emphasizing that even the smallest remnants could prove to be important clues."
http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp
-----------------------------------
Szupinka said searchers found one of the large engines from the aircraft "at a considerable distance from the crash site."
"It appears to be the whole engine," he added.
Szupinka said most of the remaining debris, scattered over a perimeter that stretches for several miles, are in pieces no bigger than a "briefcase."
(archived at http://library.triblive.com - search whole engine from 9-10-01 to 9-20-01 or read it here)
-----------------------------------------------
Crowley related that 95 percent of the airplane had been recovered. The biggest piece of aircraft found was a fuselage skin measuring about 6 to 7 feet. The heaviest piece was from one of the engines and weighed 1,000 pounds.
http://www.dailyamerican.com/disaster.html#final
-----------------------------------------------
Natalie that is a lot of bits of Airplane which have gone a long way from the crash site. In fact there is no way the debirs field can be accounted for by anything but an onboard bomb or shoot down.
Nat we have at least 100 facts which have been presented so far which support Rabbit's contention that the official story is a lie.
You have tried and failed to bring dicredit on two or three so far and have gained not a single point in favour of your conspiracy theory.
Try some of the big issues, try the Witnesses, those who actually saw something , whose testimony is valid because it is "Eyewitness" and it is verified with other witnesses. Who needs theories when there is people who saw what happened and have been saying so from day one?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-16 19:12:52

Natalie once again shoots her as yet earthbound plane with another hole. (Rabbit does not like to think of Natalie shooting her feet off)
It should be noted that the debris of flight 93 is a very small piece if evidence and it is best seen in light of a lot of other evidence, most of which natalie is stedfastly refusing to acknowledge. Now since you wish to look at the facts of Debris from flight 93, Rabbit will be pleased to oblige. The PM article has been thoroughly dealt with above. It was also noted that another tactic of the PM article was to do what you are doing Nat, Dissemble over selected details and ignoring the main deatils which actually led to the conclusion they were trying to debunk.
Rabbit did not mention any engines or fans anmd his sources certainly did not give much prominance to the details you are mentioning. It is a fatal mistake to quote PMs quotes of Rense, as many of their quotes about Rense articles were not accurate. You compound your ignorance of what you are talking about over and over with your flawed comprehension of what Rense is. The site is simply a NEWS site. It links to NEWS, from other sources. Any reference to anything Rense says, is spurious. The site Rense.com, has a disclaimer printed on it which makes you lokk like a prime dimwit everytime you or anyone says Rense makes any claims. You quote what other sources say about something without ever even having established that the thing exists. No gullible girls around here, of course.
The following is a list of sources which all detail the ACTUAL debris and there was as you will see some at 8 miles distance. So all you have done with your last post is to prove once again that the official Theory is a LIE.
The engine and debris was found "before" the crash site Natalie. This cannot have happened at impact, because the momentum would have carried all debris which can indeed roll and blow away........... in the direction of the momentum.
All the experts quoted by you were not commenting about the actual incident, but their words are being used in this new context, HOW DISHONEST and factually Bankrupt is that?
---------------------------------------------
A second debris field was around Indian Lake about 3 miles from the crash scene. Some debris was in the lake and some was adjacent to the lake.
More debris from the plane was found in New Baltimore, some 8 miles away from the crash.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/penn.attack/
---------------------------------------------
The Pennsylvania state police said debris from the crash has shown up about 8 miles away in a residential area where local media quoted some residents as seeing flaming debris from the sky.
But investigators were unwilling to say whether the presence of debris in two separate places evinced an explosion.
http://www.eastandard.net/eahome/story15092001004.htm
Finding the flight data recorder had been the focus of investigators as they widened their search area today following the discoveries of more debris, including what appeared to be human remains, miles from the point of impact at a reclaimed coal mine.
Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains. Some residents said they collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly six miles from the immediate crash scene.
http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp
-----------------------------------------
http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_secondary_debris_field.html
-------------------------------------------Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-16 19:08:27

Go to tinyurl.com, David, to shorten those links. I think the problem arises when the link is longer than the width of the entry box.
It occurs to me that the Iraqis, even after all they've been through, are more positive about their future than are liberals in America, Europe, and Canada.
http://tinyurl.com/8a9apPosted by Natalie on 2005-10-16 18:55:42

Sorry, still not correct. Very frustrating.
Go here :
http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/
and click on the 10/12/2005 article entitled
What God *Really* Told Bush
Apparently, it wasn't just "invade Iraq and Afghanistan in my name."Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-16 17:35:58

corrected link, I hope :
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgifile=/gate/archive/2005/10/12/notes101205.DTLPosted by David in Canada on 2005-10-16 17:30:36

Sorry to interrupt. Had to get this posted to the "Reckoning with the God Squad" thread :
What God *Really* Told Bush
Apparently, it wasn't just "invade Iraq and Afghanistan in my name." A special report by Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Scene: White House private residence, night, not long ago. President Bush present in his most favoritest guns 'n' bunnies PJs. Laura asleep, knocked out by a combination of too much Good Housekeeping and excessive hair-spray fumes. Suddenly, a burst of black smoke. A deep, resonant voice speaks:
"Psst! George! God here, taking a break from supervising the well-being of eight billion troubled souls along with infinite galaxies of unimaginable vastness to speak with you directly one more time because, well, you're special, aren't you, George? Yes you are! Yes you are! OK, stop giggling. I have more commands. Get off the damn hobbyhorse, George, and get a pen and a notepad. No, not a crayon. I don't care if blue is your favori-- George! Get a pen! OK? Good. Here we go: .... "
Read the rest at :
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2005/10/12/notes101205.DTL&nl=fixPosted by David in Canada on 2005-10-16 16:25:45

Gosh, Rabbit, it looks like this guy (Hilton) is guilty of promoting some of same strawman arguments you were so critical of Popular Mechanics for highlighting and then debunking. Seems as though your more level-headed conspiracy theorist rejects his approach:
http://tinyurl.com/86ltu
BTW, his "lawsuit" was rejected by the district court and subsequently by the Bush hating Ninth Circus, as I'm sure you're aware.
The white supremacists were even taking up his cause, although some were skeptical. And I thought they were all such loyal Bush supporters.
Ahh....the things you learn on the Internet.
http://tinyurl.com/8gfcbPosted by Natalie on 2005-10-16 11:23:15

A good fire can become a conflagration with some more fuel, here is some more fuel to warm Nat's bottom.
"We have some very incriminating documents as well as eye-witnesses," said Stanley Hilton, former top Republican and presidential advisor. "Bush personally ordered this event to happen in order to gain political advantage, to pursue a bogus political agenda on behalf of the neocons and their deluded thinking in the Middle East...I went to school with some of these neocons. At the University of Chicago, in the late 60s with Wolfowitz and Feith and several of the others and so I know these people personally. And we used to talk about this stuff all of the time. And I did my senior thesis on this very subject - how to turn the U.S. into a presidential dictatorship by manufacturing a bogus Pearl Harbor event. So, technically this has been in the planning at least 35 years."
------------------------------------------------
"Why no photos or videos of the Pentagon plane? And there's not a single credible frame of film or second of video of this," observed a skeptical Nico Haupt. Cameras surround the fortress on the Potomac so hiding a jumbo jet is a stretch. But all footage from the Pentagon plane actually striking the building has been kept hidden.
Jumbo jets and gigantic doubts. Pilots-in-training flying 300 ton jumbo jets like fighter pilots, better than our own top guns? And magically leaving little wreckage behind. Indeed, you'll see more wreckage from a Cessna crashing on your local golf course than you ever saw at the Pentagon.
But trust us, say the government spokesmen, and most Americans do.
Among his 500 questions about that day--questions any good detective or newsman would have asked, had any been available--Haupt noted many more puzzling anomalies. Now these anomalies do not, in themselves, prove anything more than complete and utter criminal incompetence, but they do begin to add up suspiciously.
"Why was metallic debris found 8 miles from the crash site of the plane that went down in Penn Secondary Debris Field)? They said it went straight down and left a small hole in the ground," wondered Haupt. "If they found metallic debris from the plane 8 miles away it was either shot down or a bomb exploded in the plane. Why did they not let the media or any reporters take video or photos of the crash site? Why did all 19 names (of the hijackers) not appear on the passenger list 2 days after the hijacker list was released? Why do none of the names appear on the passenger lists UA and AA gave to CNN"
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.rense.com/general68/jumbo.htmPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-16 00:19:03

Whit, from over here it looks like you guys could be on the rim of the vortex about now, yes.
We have followed your development in our own quiet NEW WORLD ORDER way here in OZ. It isn't pretty and Rabbit feels the veneer of democracy is only that. We seem to be as hamstrung on real choices, Neither Labour nor Liberal offers any alternative in much the same way as Dems and Reps over there. Our Labour is more Socialist in origins and as such carries the liberal flag. They have absorbed a lot of the old communists as easily since they became a spent force. They are consequently not well enough organised and only the center, relatively conservative brand rises to prominance, no doubt something like that occurs there.
If this viewpoint is worth anything Rabbit would say things look like they are at critical mass stage. Something is going to have to give. Because of our similarities and obvious ties on the important lines of influence, rabbit is taking a keen personal interest in what is happening in the USA. Experince suggests we will follow quite closely in any developments down there. Rabbit can figure out for himself what exactly the likely effects will be to Oz from things down that way.
It seems highly likely that if things go certain ways then we are going to see some things descending upon you my Northern friends which we can only pray will not continue here.
If the Junta, does go for a final throw of the dice, anything is possible. They are poised for a complete martial takeover and all bets are off as to what laws and protections you have left to stop it. Things have not gotten to such a state with freedom and privacy in such a short time for no reason. Things seem to have reached crunch time on many fronts for this Junta. Either they know something we don't which is why they are playing so hard and fast, or else they have got plans for you which is not all about freedom and democracy.
My opinion only, but it includes intuition as well as a lot of informed observation and consideration, this looks like the point where unless we get a miracle, the rest is a spiralling decline. Like the vortex in the center of a whirlpool going down the drain, you may be on the very rim.
Our wirlpool is just spinning a mirror image of course, and we too are getting closer.
One of the signs of a collapse over there is that our MSM is starting to be much more critical and objective about US policies and events surrounding the US WOT. Not a GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR. It is being seen even here as a US WAR ON TERROR..
They are distancing themselves maybe in a sort of moving to the fence attitude, which means they are no longer betting on the Bushies winning.
Still the scary bit is, the Bushies are MANIACS, and they still have the button....Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-15 22:04:20

Whit................. Luminous Beauty.............
Rabbit is often humbled by the scintillating insight of others and you have both given him pause to reflect and not for the first time.
You have the advantage over Rabbit in understanding your kin and land, naturally. Yet it is seldom so obvious and the insights are appreciated. Luminous Beauty, maybe interests you to know Rabbit has first born son born on same date as Robert Zimmerman. He happens to be a very Gifted guitarist, at 14 he has been playing for 8 years and teaches a half dozen students himself now.
Rabbit rests himself by the strength of strings..........................
no voice can hope to hum....................^^...........................
The Cat is probably number 2 favorite, Rabbit has a GREAT recent interview with Dylan, in archives, and it really is an interview!
This might be the only real interview, Rabbit can't remember him doing more than grunting on other occassions and Rabbit has waited hours at concerts a couple times for the old bastard to make a showing, but..........Transcript by the way, but that doesn't matter, his voice is shit anyway...........Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-15 21:42:32

" Is this the big blend, where we morph into a police state? ... Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-15 12:23:13

Why are the National Guard, who are supposed to be protecting and supporting the public on the homefront, all in Iraq killing and getting killed... And the U.S. regular military, who are supposed to be fighting our wars, on the homefront taking charge of domestic national emergencies.
Is this the big blend, where we morph into a police state? ... 'AS the policing of the world gets more and more "privatized".Posted by whit on 2005-10-15 08:20:11

# 2
But there was Mr. Bush, in his common man attire of rolled-up shirt sleeves, ruminating about letting the military loose on its own people. He dropped the little jack-boot nugget in a post-Katrina speech meant to deflect attention from the incompetence of the federal government in responding to the natural disaster days after the fact.
If the military can get the job done on American soil lickety-split, why shouldn't it be allowed to do so? Congress ought to think about amending a law that restricts the homeland role of federal troops, he opined, as visions of army tanks rolling through American cities danced in our heads.
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was passed as a sane response to the huge buildup of federal troops in the South during Reconstruction. The 127-year-old law that restricts the military to its core competency of waging war and defending the nation - not acting as police at home - is as relevant now as it was 127 years ago.
Soldiers who are trained to kill should not cross into civilian activities like law enforcement even in a domestic disaster the size of Katrina. Congress must resist any political pressure to consider inflating the authority of active duty forces even after such catastrophic events. Federalizing a disaster response on American soil is a dangerous proposition fraught with fearful scenarios, not the least of which is abuse of power.
Where does one draw the line on using military force in a national crisis? And how easily can jurisdictional boundaries be blurred? What constitutes a national disaster worthy of troop intervention on Main Street? Could unwieldy war protesters converging on Washington be controlled by armed infantrymen and tanks? Would a hostile strike by thousands of factory workers be enough to call out the military?
Under Posse Comitatus, active duty military can act in a variety of support functions to offer disaster relief, from providing logistics to distributing humanitarian aid. But first-responders to homeland security must be civilian-led: police officers, firefighters, medical and rescue crews, and, if necessary, the citizen soldiers of the National Guard.
Not to worry, assures the President even as the military crafts a plan to organize specially trained and equipped active-duty armed forces to respond immediately to national disasters in ostensibly supporting roles with the Nation Guard.
Everything is under control, say Dubya's preoccupied handlers, even as their charge nudges the nation into a scary place with greater military authority at home.Posted by whit on 2005-10-15 08:14:42

#1
Published on Friday, October 14, 2005 by the Toledo Blade (Ohio)
Greater Role for Military? Call Out the Posse (Comitatus)
by Marilou Johanek
The brains behind the Bush Administration must be otherwise occupied these days. How else to explain the President's recent public displays of grasping at straws? Telling an increasingly skeptical nation to trust his instincts on elevating his devoted personal lawyer to the highest court in the land was akin to saying "trust me, I know what I'm doing in Iraq" or "trust me, everything's under control after Katrina and Rita."
Honestly, where is Karl Rove or Karen Hughes when we need them? The mastermind of the President's stunning rise from failed businessman with a pedigree to head of the free world is busy trying to save his own neck. He's up to his eyeballs in a developing scandal that involves exposing a CIA operative to teach her anti-administration spouse a lesson. In between multiple grand jury appearances, Karl could hardly be expected to proofread every Oval Office script.
Then there's the formidable Ms. Hughes, the President's chief Texas confidante and born-again cheerleader. In between traveling far and wide to patronize Arab audiences she is supposed to be charming, the woman can hardly be expected to run interference for a bungling boss back home.
But someone with even half a brain in the Bush circle of cherished cronies needs to nix a slippery suggestion by the commander in chief that the military should take a greater role in responding to homeland disasters. The very idea that the Pentagon would expand its job description from fighting wars to resolving any homeland crises from natural disasters to man-made ones should make the skin crawl on every freedom-loving American.
Published on Friday, October 14, 2005 by the Toledo Blade (Ohio)
Greater Role for Military? Call Out the Posse (Comitatus)
by Marilou Johanek
The brains behind the Bush Administration must be otherwise occupied these days. How else to explain the President's recent public displays of grasping at straws? Telling an increasingly skeptical nation to trust his instincts on elevating his devoted personal lawyer to the highest court in the land was akin to saying "trust me, I know what I'm doing in Iraq" or "trust me, everything's under control after Katrina and Rita."
Honestly, where is Karl Rove or Karen Hughes when we need them? The mastermind of the President's stunning rise from failed businessman with a pedigree to head of the free world is busy trying to save his own neck. He's up to his eyeballs in a developing scandal that involves exposing a CIA operative to teach her anti-administration spouse a lesson. In between multiple grand jury appearances, Karl could hardly be expected to proofread every Oval Office script.
Then there's the formidable Ms. Hughes, the President's chief Texas confidante and born-again cheerleader. In between traveling far and wide to patronize Arab audiences she is supposed to be charming, the woman can hardly be expected to run interference for a bungling boss back home.
But someone with even half a brain in the Bush circle of cherished cronies needs to nix a slippery suggestion by the commander in chief that the military should take a greater role in responding to homeland disasters. The very idea that the Pentagon would expand its job description from fighting wars to resolving any homeland crises from natural disasters to man-made ones should make the skin crawl on every freedom-loving American.Posted by whit on 2005-10-15 08:14:20

I agree with you, Natalie, and some of the stuff on the internet is bogus, disappointing, and unreliable both in terms of accessing it and in content. However, that does not happen to be the case ONLY with sites that you might regard as liberal/progressive/radical. Cyberland is in constant flux and there is little enforced accoutability. The internet is widely used for right-wing hate-mongering as well, is it not?
I apologize if I given you bad steers. Actually I'm more of a non-fiction book person. I find the info in books generally to be more concrete, better organized within a wider context, and easier to discern the validity of according to citations. You might try "War on Freedom" or one of the other books I suggested. I could make some recommendations if you'd like. 'And you could recommend to me as well.Posted by whit on 2005-10-15 07:58:07

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E.
Professor Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of California, Berkeley
Natalie, Professor Astaneh received a research grant from the National Science Foundation to go to New York and to Investigate the collapse of twin towers of the World Trade Center. This may have been because he was quite highly qualified and recognized in the 'scientific community' as an expert in his field.
Are you sure that your disregard for U.C. Berkeley is really warranted, Natalie? True, it has the reputation of being a hotbed of political unrest (in the past). However, if you try to be a little objective and open-minded about it, it did turn out, if my understanding is correct, that the Berkeley radicals were right on the Vietnam thing and that our government, YOUR government did deceive the public about the real deal, the Bay of Tonkin never happened, and the military-industrial complex that General/President Eisenhower tried to warn us against made a shitload of money, taxpayers $. 'And that elements of the M/I complex were implicated as being involved in the assination of JFK who was planning to kill their golden goose. 'Or do you have expert testimony validating the "government's" (magical bullet) theory?
I should admit that I attended the School of Invironmental Design at U.C. Berkeley back in the 70s. I ran out of funds (G.I. bill, scholarships, job, etc) just before my senior year and never did become an architect (although I did go on to get a masters in education elsewhere. However, the "education" I got at Berkeley has been one of the defining factors in my life. Berkeley is an excellent school... one of the finest in the nation, and has excellent academic credentials. By the way, where were you educated, my snobbish friend?Posted by whit on 2005-10-15 07:44:55

I'm curious what Natalie thinks about the 'Anthrax Letters'.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-15 07:27:06

Oooh! Natalie is a psychiatric clinician. Or is it Cliopatra's syndrome? That is rich. I can't refute your ideas so I'll belittle the legitimacy of your sources and call you crazy. This is about as close to Natalie can get to admitting maybe she doesn't know. It's the American way, Rabbit. Denial and avoidance. Followed by, 'No, you're the one in denial'. One big dysfunctional family.
For a real world example of projection, look at this; " I wouldnPosted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-15 05:57:08

Does Prof. Astaneh-Asl personally subscribe to the "deliberate implosion theory"? It appears to me that he is simply cited as being troubled by the remains of the WTC being disposed of too quickly, although I wouldn't be surprised if a professor from Berkley would attempt to exonerate the terrorists.
Are there any polls by legitimate polling organizations that have asked the specific question or similar: Do you believe that the WTC collapsed because of a terrorist attack, or because of explosives planted by our own government?
Unless you can cite such polls, (and I'm sorry they can't be foreign polls and they must be specific to the theory of collapse) I don't know how you can credibly state that the theory is somehow "mainstream". I do not recall a single report, speculative or otherwise in the "mainstream" U.S. media even addressing the theory.
Internet propaganda indeed, Rabbit. The overwhelming bulk of propaganda seems to be coming from the "alternative explanations" crowd. You may be a pyro-technical welding bunny, but you're also a projecting and transferring one.Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-15 04:33:47

Whit that last link is a better illustrated version again and Rabbit recommends it for ease of understanding.
Luminous Beauty your link is by far the most poignant overall.. Rabbit is looking forward to a screen saver which will be that face as it gets the rope, chair or jab.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-14 19:19:31

Honestly don't usually have problems posting or using links on this board.
Rabbit admits he never even looked at the Professor Astaneh experiment. He didn't think Nat would either.
Perhaps we should all stop being lazy and google HTML and get our act in gear. Actually though Rabbit doesn't mind the simple format. Simple is usually best. Keep it Forrest Gump, coming from a technician.
Nat just a reminder, the Implosion theory of the WTCs is more or less mainstream. It can hardly be suggested it is a little held or supported belief. A survey of the number of people who actually support the theory will show far more do than don't.
No amount of pretending can change the fact that the official lie has never been successful in convincing anyone who took the time to check. This is why the Truth movement is a growing tide as evidenced in surveys and polls, as evidenced in legal actions and as evidenced in desperate actions like putting much energy into INTERNET propaganda. Both the original flawed claims reproduced in many formats as if that makes any difference to the omissions and outright false claims. Also by ensuring that there are shills aplenty with a list of the main points to avoid discussing and the things which should be emphasised and repeated.
WITNESSES ............................. Would have to be one of the top "NEVER ACKNOWLEDGE" categories, it would seem.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-14 18:44:47

Thanks, whit, I was especially impressed by the link labeled:
"Why are we not allowed to question the Holocaust"
You might try using tinyurl to cut down on the lengths of long links, which are usually messed up by the message board for some reason. The taishan link needed to have the space between the fours closed and one of the fours eliminated to work.
ITT, if you read this, could you please reinstitute making links clickable for us html dummies?Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-14 09:46:20

Here is an animation/simulation that does an excellent job of demonstrating gravitational free-fall and solid resistance.
http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/georgie.htmPosted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-14 09:37:31

Natalie,
This site might be useful... and it gives a reference list of a number of other sites at the end of the article. (copy and paste)
http://bbs.taishan.com/viewtopic.php?t=608&sid=68d6d68f4d83fcaf3c06e6357e1766d8
For info on Prof Astaneh-AslPosted by whit on 2005-10-14 07:21:26

Lots of interesting info, Rabbit. I will investigate it when I have time, maybe this weekend. I especially liked the last link. Did you make another mistake in posting that one? :-)
Your implosion theory made the big time today. Someone of your same mind called in to the second most listened to radio talk show in America and presented the theory. His reception wasn't exactly warm, though. Something like: "Get off my phone ya big dope!!"
It's a start.Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-14 01:10:48

A bunch of different articles, all detailing clearly why the Official LIE cannot stand. From a purely engineering viewpoint.
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/sciam01/sci_am1.html
http://www.cam.net.uk/home/nimmann/peace/explosions.htm
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.htmlPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-13 23:39:38

The following link includes much technical detail as well as photos of the floors before concrete was poured. Notice the steel re-enforcing mesh laid out.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/sixty-state-street/construction.htm
------------------------------------------
Natalie on your comments about how scientific Rabbit's test is , by the way. We are only testing to see if the flame from jet fuel is hot enough to weaken steel. Therefore it is eminently useful for the purpose.
Please note that Rabbit was the nerdy kid with glasses and who did great in science and biology, back in school days. Natalie was obviously not paying attention, she was probably wagging school to smoke with the bad kids behind the bike sheds. Rabbit is quite conversant with the scientific method.
-------------------------------------------
Yes upon further reading of this site it has much of technical value, thanks for asking Natalie.
"Strangely, the authors of the FEMA Report "forget" to mention the 24 x 18 inch metal plates that were covered with shear studs and also set in the concrete slab. These plates (together with the 6 foot long diagonal bars and the welded and bolted truss connections) provided a strong connection between the floor slab and the perimeter wall."
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/sixty-state-street/construction.htm
---------------------------------
The following is a short entry but it makes a few calculations which do the trick. There are so many ways to PROVE the buildings were brought down with explosives, it is incredible that the lies have come this far.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_demolition_init.htm
-----------------------------------
Natalie there is so much about the engineering, for our case that it is actually a little overwhelming. There is a huge amount of sites repeating the "EXACT" offial story, word for word but with different sources, as if there are lots of arguments for the official LIES. But there really is only one. The fantastic version invented by FEMA and co.
--------------------------
"Overall, it comes as a great surprise that the impact of a Boeing 767 bought down either tower. Indeed, many experts are on record as saying that the towers would survive the impact of the larger and faster Boeing 747. In this regard, see professor Astaneh-Asl's simulation of the crash of the much, much larger and heavier Boeing 747 with the World Trade Center. Professor Astaneh-Asl teaches at the University of California, Berkeley."
http://nerdcities.com/guardian/WTC/wtc-microsoft.htm
---------------------------------------
A real experiment for you Natalie.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-13 23:26:42

Firemen in the buildings said that the fires were out,.........WITNESSES.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-13 19:22:38

A real high explosives explosion lacks much flame and smoke unless it has blown something up which gives either or both.
Fuel does not explode or all burn at once, unless it is vapourised or at least atomised (Finely dispersed)
The fireballs included most of the jet fuel, if not all. The resulting fire should not have been very hot and would have cooled quickly to a much lower temperature, within minutes at most. This would mean much more smoke of course, since most of the things left burning would be curtains and carpets and wood and plastic. This to an experienced eye is the type of fire that was seen after the initial fireballs. The amount of smoke and lack of flames visible even at the end, suggested the fires were more or less out. This would mean that the STEEL structures which may have had some heating at various, by no means all, points would have been cooling for some time before, as the fires were diminishing. By the time the smoke was thickest the buildings should have been stabilising, assuming they were ever seriously compromised structurally in the first place, which I in all sincerity.......DOUBT.
Rabbit works in Metal, is an Industrial Chemist and Pyrotechnician.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-13 19:20:52

Nobody says that explosives were needed to pulverise the concrete, just that explosives was the most likely cause of such pulverisation. What an odd little sideline. The sort of tests you are describing are of no more necessity than the sort Rabbit is ironically suggesting you perform. The point Rabbit is trying to make is that the results of these sorts of things is very well understood. Gravity, energy all sorts of physics principles exist which make it silly for Natalie to try and prove Steel can be heated enough to be weakened by jet fuel, or that things don't fall at a certain rate unless they are helped or hindered.
Natalie you are essentially standing and saying, "BUT has anyone done any tests to prove that "THIS" steel will not melt at the temperature of a barbecue, or that THIS structure will only fall at the speed of gravity.
As for your Speculation, on matters which are easy to establish, Rabbit will return.
Natalie, this is nitpicking, you cannot prove the buildings came down under gravity alone, you can only bring some doubt to bear on individual selected issues, you cannot deny that the explosives theory accounts for everything, INCLUDING WITNESSES. Were you maybe hoping we could get all tied up with engineering details, which can as said only show some parts of your theory stand alone, but can never DISPROVE our theory. We can disprove your theory, on several points. Not least of which is, witnesses.
As for the structure in the world trade centers, they were many tens of centimeters thick steel, and they stood upright.
Taking a much thinner, even in scale, piece of steel and holding it horizontal while heating it, will DEFINATELY subject that steel to greater stress than the WTC design allowed for. That Mini Mouse, would be obvious, even to a girl. Rabbit even suggested you try it with an even hotter flame than "your jet fuel" theory can account for. He told you to try this because he already knows how much it takes to SOFTEN metal.
The thing is the hottest flame which could have been achieved by jet fuel, in a running jet engine, would have only been enough to soften the structural steel, even without non-flammable insulation in the way, after several hours. Most of this jet fuel was incinerated by the VERY uncharacteristic explosions which resulted on impact. That can be seen in the film. The fireball can be measured, and the amount of fuel required to produce such a fireball calculated to within a few liters. PYRO's do it all the time, on movie sets.
This was a classic pyrotechnic effect. Not once but twice, perfect fireball explosions. They had an explosive dispersant and all round ignition. Both those perfect fireballs. They looked quite normal to TV viewrs of course. They looked exactly like Plane explosions look in the movies. That is the whole point. EXPLOSIONS in the movies are not the real thing. They are pyrotechnic effects used to impress people, because actually the real thing usually lacks the grandeur. The fireball of a real fuel explosion, is one ball where the immediately available vapours ignite and then a much longer growing conflagration, in which the bulk of the fuel burns. Not anywhere as impressive as a huge fireball and smoke. The thing with real fuel explosions too is that they leave everything around burning too and this is not often the idea on a set which may have to be used over and over. The pyrotechnic effects are much more impressive and controlled. Just like the WTC ones.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-13 19:20:24

Hi Whit
Rabbit has only been on and off forums over the years. Most of late and it is easy from how rabbit works. In between setting up Rotational moulding oven, and fitting Kayaks etc, is plenty time for Internet.
Your contributions have been appreciated and often highly thought of by others as well as Rabbit. This is actuallt rabbit's favorite site since the concentration of intelligent and thoughful people is high, there are not too many and especially there are not so many articles and threads going that discussions become too diluted.
this is the main criticism of Rabbit's other favoured hunting grounds of the moment, Washington Monthly. There are many souls and many threads, but a few very fine Rabbit friends among them too. The quality and variety of Trolls and Shills on this site, is particularly enterntaining too I might add.
They are essential to much of the best presentations of information we achieve, and this site has its moments. Rabbit is a fan.
Thinking at the moment about setting up a site which will allow certain discussions to continue, with articles being added as part of the dicussion. Keep the threads going, and develop it towards an useful conclusion. Even an action based conclusion.
There will also be a kind of zoo, where certain classic discussions will be highlighted and maximum use can be made of much of the time and effort that many of us put into this ultimately democratic process.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-13 18:40:00

Your tests are interesting, Rabbit, but wouldn't one want to try harder to duplicate the conditions and the structure in the tower, on a smaller scale of course? Obviously the steel in the tower had much more weight on it than simply "its own".
The relatively thin steel trusses were connected at each end by clips, not clamped between a vise. Why not try to duplicate the type of attachment at the ends instead of using a totally different method? Doesn't sound very scientific to me.Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-13 09:51:54

>3.Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by gravity alone ("Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-13 09:43:15

Hi, Rabbit,
Just checking in. Haven't had much free time lately. I haven't much to contribute here as I agree with almost everything you are presenting. Seems like this thread is dwindling as the forces of self-righteous pretense shrink back into their comfort zones of fearful projection, refusing to own nothing but glorious nobility and the best intentions. If only reality were so simple.
You are certainly a busy and dedicated Rabbit.
'The word awesome occurs.
I was hoping the discussion would shift a little, back laterally towards a more philosophical/ historical/political perspective. I'm a bit out of my league on the technical aspects of experts vs. counter experts. I've read enough to know that the official story doesn't seem to hold water. 'But the technical strokes works best, I think, within the context of the larger painting.
This was actually my first experience of logging onto a reader forum of this sort and and exchanging views etc. It's been an interesting and educational experience. If you'd care to, you might suggest other interesting site/threads where this kind of discursive engagement is going on.
Hats off... Keep on keeping on.
I wonder what happened to Jay.
Now off to my more contrete chores.Posted by whit on 2005-10-13 07:40:21

A nail file and a gas lighter?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-13 00:31:05

Rabbit is a welder as it happens.
We use Oxy-acetylene to heat steel for bending or cutting. The stuff is expensive, and if Kerosene (Jet Fuel) could be made to burn hot enough to bend steel, don't you think we would do it?
Even LPG is much cheaper than OXY Acetylene, and it sure as hell burns a lot hotter than Jet Fuel ever could be made to. We don't use LPG to even heat up steel enough to bend it.
As far as the jet fuel, which was mostly incinerated in the initial fireball as John points out again, having been responsible for the collapses is concerned...............NO DICE.
Natalie says she does not wish to jump off chairs for Rabbit. How about getting a kerosene burner, you can get these good ones which can be pumped up and they supply the fuel in a fine mist in a jet burner type arrangement. This will give you a much hotter flame than what the firs in the WTC's sustained.
Take a piece of 4-5mm thick steel angle iron (25x25mm) 1 meter long and hold the hottest part of your little jet engine up against the middle of the steel section, hold the steel horizontally, in a vice.
If you can get the steel to bend under it's own weight in that position, you will have given the official theory more than a fair chance of being proven. *HINT* If it has not bent after a few hours, give up.
You might want to try this with LPG just as a comparison. If you do this first, you probably won't bother trying something even cooler, like Jet Fuel.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-12 20:16:50

1] You have not seen very many videos of it Natalie. You are simply wrong about the end not being visible. Rememeber the seismics again to. There is also sound on some of the videos which make it easier yet to judge.
The times for collapse are known, established, and no question actually. Have not yet taken the time to find them, but shall do.
2] Nothing about counterweights heard before no. It still makes no difference, because the force of gravity does not take the weight, or mass into account. The tilting was as you say noticeable at the start, but it righted itself in such a way that only complete and even collapse of the entire understory could have been responsible. The tilting you mentioned was momentary and looks like it fell towards a weakened corner slightly quicker, but the rest of the building was following and continued to catch up within a couple of stories.
Even more important though Natalie, this only happened on the one of the buildings. Yet they both still fell at the same rates as each other and in IDENTICAL fashion. They also both fell at the same rate as WTC 7. The building which nobody in Shill land even wants to talk about. It is understandable that the official story ignores WTC 7, as if it never was there.
By the way the idea of counterweights offsetting windage is the wackiest theory Rabbit has ever heard. You do need to do some basic physics comprehension. Do the chair pillow thing, it will eventually make sense. Actually Rabbit thought last night , a cardboard box would be a better experiment for our purposes. You will take slightly longer to reach the ground as some of your momentum is checked by the initial resistance of the box.
3] Natalie, there are many more people who do not believe the official theory than who do. Just in NEW YORK alone, fifty percent of the people believe the government is lying. One of the polls has been given somewhere already. There is simply no credible challenge to the theories we are looking at. All the main and certainly the only credible challenges are directed at the official Conspiracy Theory. No point trying to pretend we are a small band of looneys. Nat the tide is already high but is rising on a daily basis. You must not get much news around where you live. You are actually the small and dwindling band of looneys who still cling to the official lie. God only knows why, because the whole box of lies is so transparent and it is literally going to court cases right now which should see the whole case on these matters closed, sooner rather than later. You remind Rabbit of some little girl with her plastic bucket and spade, desperately working to keep up the wall she has built to keep back the tide. The tide is coming up darling, and it is going right around the edges of your wall. You just can't build a wall long enough or big enough to keep back the tide forever. What's more dearheart, the summer is nearly over. You might have to think about changing your clothing before long.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-12 19:30:26

-ps-
Natalie:
The steel didn't melt.
That is a lie.
Jet fuel can't melt steel. The fires didn't burn long enougn. The South Tower had most of its fuel ejected in a massive fireball at the impact of the plane. The South Tower fire was under control and about to be extinguished when the people responsible started the explosive chain reaction and made the tower disappear forever.
That's what happened. If you refuse, for psychological reasons, to accept the possibility, then there's not much point discussing.Posted by johndoraemi on 2005-10-12 18:18:11

I hear a lot of silence on all that 9-11 evidence I posted yesterday.
WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW
CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE
INTERVIEW DATE NOVEMBER 7 2001
First collapse:
"THERE WAS NO AIR. WHATEVER THIS EXPLOSION WAS SIMPLY SUCKED ALL THE OXYGEN OUT OF THE AIR. YOU COULDNT BREATHE AND THE FEELING OF SUFFOCATION, I CANT EXPLAIN NO FURTHER ON THAT."
Second collapse:
"SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD
TRADE CENTER THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT. INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH. THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE. THE POPPING SOUND, AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS I COULD SEE. THESE POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER, GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE BUILDING"
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html
I like David Ray Griffin's take on 9-11 as well:
WMV
http://www.911busters.com/911_new_video_productions/WMV/DR_Griffin_Madison.wmv
MOV
http://www.911busters.com/911_new_video_productions/MOV/DR_Griffin_Madison.movPosted by johndoraemi on 2005-10-12 18:14:05

Luminous Beauty,
Glad you liked the Nimmo article, found the Baraka poem and liked it too. Here's a little taste to tempt others.
Somebody Blew Up America
by AMIRI BARAKA
Somebody Blew Up America
They say its some terrorist,
some barbaric
A Rab,
in Afghanistan
It wasn't our American terrorists
It wasn't the Klan or the Skin heads
Or the them that blows up nigger
Churches, or reincarnates us on Death Row
It wasn't Trent Lott
Or David Duke or Giuliani
Or Schundler, Helms retiring
.. excerpted from ..
http://www.counterpunch.org/poem1003.htmlPosted by David in Canada on 2005-10-12 15:13:22

>1:Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-12 09:49:17

David:
Thanks for the Nimmo/Baraka link. I followed it to the original poem and Baraka's reply to NJ's governor's cowardly demands. Too bad J. Cline isn't reading this, since he has expressed his disdain of poetry. I found the conclusion of the essay especially compelling:
"Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-12 07:38:30

Has Natalie tried jumping onto pillows yet?
That will be necessary before we get into times of collapse too.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-12 02:42:25

By the way, back on 1: again, does Natalie know what seismic records are?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-12 02:40:00

1: No Natalie, although such confirmation is available and Rabbit shall find it for you. You only have to measure the time it takes for the building to start collapsing to the time it takes to hit ht ground. The distance is known.None of those other funny things you mention matter.
2: Yes and no. The building would be designed to collapes into it's own footprint and as Rabbit has before said it would by about the halfway point have probably levelled out to a uniform collapse, for reasons which can be detailed but which could be taken on faith if one considers the desirability of this type of design even. This does not explain why the things fell so evenly from the start as they did. The design we are talking about would have ensured continued resistance at every point which was not subject to catastrophic force at the same time. Parts would have resisted and the collapse would have begun uneven, this would have evened itself out by some point as the momentum of the collapsing mass became a sufficiently powerful battering ram. This point would not have been able to be reached in an instant as even a casual timing of the events shows has happened.
3: All the specifications for the building materials is available and nobody has raised a credible defence to any of these claims in several years, if Nat would like to try on this particular issue, be my guest. Rabbit doubts it will get you anywhere, since it seems unlikely you are the first to think of it. As far as testing the actual remains, that is impossible of course because they were disposed of in an uncommon and questionable fashion by the government. Obstruction of justice is what it is usually called. se some of the links already given.
4: But Natalie, one does not expect to see those Explosions happening 30 floors below the point of collapse.
5: Go and have a look at other buildings which have collapsed and stop quoting a discredited document. The process you have just described has no bearing on the lengths of the columns or how they were connected.
These are just generic statements, which pretend that certain information such as photo and video evidence, as well as archival evidence do not allow certain things like how the collapse looked, or how the buildings were constructed, to be known.
Natalie, READ everything you have been given.
Nitpicking these bits and pieces while ignoring the overall picture is weird, even if Rabbit is used to you by now.
PRIORITIES. -- GRAVITY. VIDEOS. WITNESSES. MONEY.........
No apologies necessary, your least is as good as your best and that is enough for Rabbit anytime, bittersweet Natalie. Do the rest of the posts and Rabbit will give you some Witnesses to consider afterwards.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-12 02:38:28

1. Each WTC building collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed (approximately 10 seconds or less).
I'd be interested in some professional documentation of the metholody used to actually measure the speed of collapse, (for example, wouldn't video analysis would have to include the horizontal distance from the camera to the building, the vertical angle up from horizontal, and confirmation that the video is in real time) and an explanation of exactly how one can even ascertain when the event ended, given the massive clouds of dust and debris. Why is that after presumably hours and hours of study by scores of engineers and related scientists, apparently little was found unexpected in the rate of fall, given the extremely unusual (and relatively lightweight) design of the building. Are there any other examples of a similarly designed building being knowingly deliberately demolished that one could use to compare the rates of collapse? In other words, is the rate of collapse of the WTC really THAT remarkable?
2. Each building collapsed, for the most part, into its own footprint.
This seems to be well within expectations given the design of the building. It was not one rigid structure that would be subject to "tipping over". There was insufficient lateral force to cause the building to fall far from straight down.
3. Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by gravity alone ("Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-12 02:05:23

AND we are still only showing that the official story is a lie.
No proposals from any WILD EYED CONSPIRACY THEORISTS about what did happen, just a steady and documented listing of facts which all have a bearing on any theory, one might be proposing to develop.
Question the FACTS dittoheads, Shills and Trolls, if you can. Allow us to further prove them if we must, but deal with the facts, and then fit that into your own conspiracy theories, if you can. If you cannot, then ask us, we have a few theories as it happens about what happened.
The FACTS are not able to be questioned. You ignore instead the FACTS, and concentrate on repeating your opinions in as many guises as you can, but opinions which do not comply with the FACTS are not worth the electrons you use expressing them.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-11 23:47:34

The "US Navy Lt. Delmart Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-11 21:15:21

These are just a few examples of foreknowledge of 9/11.
More pieces of the puzzle.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-11 21:03:55

"On August 11, 2001, US Navy Lt. Delmart "Mike" Vreeland, held in Toronto on U.S. fraud charges and claiming to be an officer in U.S. Naval intelligence, gave to Canadian authorities a sealed envelope. On September 14, 2001, Canadian jailers open Vreeland's sealed envelope to find a letter detailing attacks against the WTC and Pentagon. Source: The Toronto Star, Oct. 23, 2001, and Toronto Superior Court Records."
http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo1003.htmlPosted by David in Canada on 2005-10-11 21:00:54

"Newsbytes reported on September 27, 2001, that employees of Odigo, an instant messaging company in Herzliyya, Israel, received messages warning of the attacks two hours before they occurred. Alex Diamandis, vice president of sales and marketing for Odigo, confirmed that workers in Israeli received the messages. The story was subsequently carried by CNN and Ha'aretz in Israel."
http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo1003.htmlPosted by David in Canada on 2005-10-11 20:59:08

"On September 6-7, 2001, 4,744 put options (a speculation that stock prices will go down) are purchased on United Air Lines stock. There are only 396 call options (speculation that the stock will go up) at the same time. Many of the United Air Lines puts are purchased through Deutschebank/AB Brown, a firm managed until 1998 by the current Executive Director of the CIA, A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard. This is reported in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal."
http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo1003.htmlPosted by David in Canada on 2005-10-11 20:57:27

The truth is that there is no definitive evidence that there were any Arabs on those planes, and even less proof concerning the supposed identities of the alleged hijackers.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-11 03:16:39

Attorney Berg acknowledges that RodriguezPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-11 03:00:18

An introduction to William Rodriguez, Natalie.
---------------------------------------------
WORLD TRADE CENTER RESCUE HERO SUES BUSH AND OTHERS UNDER RICO STATUTE,
ALLEGES WILLFUL COMPLICITY IN ATTACKS THAT KILLED 3,000.
By Margaret Atheling Rowe
PHILADELPHIA, PA, OCTOBER 22, 2004
On September 11, 2001, William Rodriguez, a maintenance worker at the World Trade Center in Manhattan, single-handedly rescued fifteen people. The only employee with the master key to the North Tower staircases, he led firefighters up the stairs, unlocking doors as he went, aiding in the evacuation of hundreds of additional people who, but for his efforts, might have perished. Although his job description did not include saving lives, Rodriguez re-entered the building three times after the first plane struck, and was the last person to exit the North Tower alive. He survived the collapse of the North Tower by diving beneath a fire truck to avoid the avalanche of concrete and steel. After onsite treatment for his injuries, Rodriguez plunged right back into rescue efforts at the site. At dawn the next morning, Rodriguez returned to Ground Zero from his home in Jersey City, to continue to aid in rescue efforts.
Later, Rodriguez became an unofficial spokesman for survivors, among other things helping to secure an amnesty for undocumented aliens, many of them Latinos, and in the creation of the World Trade Center Memorial Fund. Although he lost his job of 19 years and his means of livelihood Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-11 02:58:33

Thankyou John, Rabbit has been hoping you would come and take some of the load off.
Shall we go into Rodriguez in detail, for the benefit of those playing at home?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-10 18:41:48

WTH has got the Gravity idea. Actually Rabbit knows it as 0.98 meters/ second/second
This relates to how fast Gravity alone would have pulled those buildings down. It gives a theoretical figure. The figure pressupposes there is no counterforce being offerred.
By now Natalie should have jumped off the chair a few times and noticed the predictable result, that she falls down. Hopefully having proved to herself with the pin and the Iron that Gravity is constant and does not care how heavy something is, she is ready for the next experiment.
Place a thick pillow, or a beanbag, or several pillows between the floor and where you are stepping off the chair.
A table or higher place would be better, but Rabbit does not want Natalie to hurt herself.
Now you can step onto the cushion and observe the difference it makes to haow fast you hit the floor. You may have to repeat the experiment a few times to get the feel of it. You could also step into a pool full of water, and see what difference this makes.
The point of this?
Well, there was a bit more substantial resistance to the collapsing WTCs especially at the outset, than a few pillows or some water.
This is why anybody with a gram of sense has to conclude that there is no way that THREE buildings in a row all managed to hit the ground as if there was no structural resistance whatsoever. Not even the resistance a coloumn of Jelly would have presented.
It is in the timings. Rabbit thinks that a precise analysis of all the timings will actually show at least one of the buildings exceeded free fall speed. That one is the BIG DADDY ELEPHANT. The BIG RED ONE, in amongst all those Pink ones.
Here is some recent stuff worth looking at. Looking a bit more at Giuliani, and especially Silverstein. Zakheim gets a mention too.
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=consp_911&Number=293499967Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-10 18:38:11

Thanks Luminous Beauty, Rabbit really should have a dictionary handy, at home computer I have and occasionally double check a word not used much before. Rabbit has been going for a couple of weeks with that mistake. Dissemble
Spelling is another issue of course. Trouble is Rabbit can type VERY fast with his two paws and the few seconds spellcheck sorts out the common mistake with left and right paws wrong order. The letters are usually there, but need to be re-arranged. No spellcheck here. It is Rabbit's hard to copy "signature" though and I like the security it gives. Living in some trepidation of a False Rabbit turning up one of these days.
The problem with losing posts we are talking about is different. The type you are talking of is known and as you say one can return to the previous page and copy. But, this one actually goes forever. No retrieval, Going to previous page is blank in comments. For Rabbit it seems to happen especially when he tries to set out the precise way in which the WTCs would have been demolished. The technical details are much more clear and there are a lot of words which could be suspect, epecially in combination. The feeling for me is that it is some some of "security system". There is a time lapse involved when the posts go like this and everything seems in order until the page pops up, minus your post. I've even copied the whole post, only to have the computer crash in place of losing the post, on those two occasions. If it sounds weird it is, but Rabbit admits this computer is a weird one too. It can crash easily if one asks too much of it, without warning. It also crashes when anybody tries to hack into it. This has proven to be such a useful side effect that Rabbit just lets it be.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-10 18:21:58

"I have to assume now, that you must also believe the first attempt to topple the Twin Towers in 1993 was carried out by, or with the knowledge, consent and/or help of the U.S. Government. Do you have any information or speculation on THAT event?"
Does the NY Times count?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtcbomb.html
Natalie, I'm going to assume that you're genuine. You have a lot to learn about the way the US government operates.
Who Bombed the U.S. World Trade Center? Posted by johndoraemi on 2005-10-10 17:29:47

The acceleration rate of any object (regardless of weight) is 15 feet per second per second. (in a vacuum)
second one = 15 ft
second two = 30 ft
second three = 45, etc.Posted by whattheheck on 2005-10-10 17:12:19

"For example, the continued repetition that 9/11 was orchestrated by high level US officials without providing a shred of evidence. "
There are mountains of evidence. If you refuse to look at the evidence, whose fault is that?
Thousands of people have been shouting about this for four years. There are dozens of books, thousands of articles, thousands of websites.
They aren't all correct. They aren't all complete, as a massive coverup has been underway. However, there are a number of irrefutable facts about 9-11 that most researchers agree on.
And I'm not going to give you a year's worth of education in the space of this posting. You have a computer. Fucking use it.Posted by johndoraemi on 2005-10-10 16:09:18

signing offPosted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-10 11:02:43

"Although these experts provided few actual facts of any material support that Iraq actually provided, their opinions, coupled with their qualifications as experts on this issue, provide a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to draw inferences which could lead to the conclusion that Iraq provided material support to al Qaeda."
I can't help but think you aren't getting what Rabbit is saying about the difference between facts and opinions, Natalie.
What I found especially meaningful in its absence from that story, is any mention of defense rebuttal, or defense witnesses testifying, or indeed any defense legal representation.
I, myself, would feel little vindication from what looks like a kangaroo court.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-10 10:48:12

Rabbit, when the court cases claiming deliberate demolition are heard and the US Govt is found guilty, I presume you and the plaintaiffs will consider yourself vindicated and your charges validated.
Would it be similar to the vindication and validation these people felt?
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1051121852966Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-10 10:20:44

Rabbit:
I've had your problem with losing posts. It appears to happen when I open another site in the same window. When I go back to the ITT page then hit 'submit' my post doesn't get printed. I've found if I back click to the previous page, I can copy my post, click forward, paste and submit. I hope this is helpful.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-10 07:47:22

A small critique, Rabbit, sir,
I think you meant dissemble, not disseminate. You are disseminating; scattering seeds. Natalie is dissembling; avoiding the issues raised by those seeds.
One engineering aspect of the collapse I haven't seen addressed is the obvious tipping of the upper stories of at least one tower at the initial failure. If the building was 'pancaking', even if you somehow believe it progressed at free fall speeds, the resistance of the lower floors would have imparted a lateral component of force to cause the upper section to tumble, breaking free of the rest of the building. This obviously didn't happen. The other aspect of this tilt is that it means the upper section and the lower section would only contact each other on at most an outside edge of their cross section, thus imparting unequal force over the whole, making the pancaking theory problematic.
Natalie: In spite of the impressive list of lettered associations in your asce post, it is on its face an ad hoc argument. That is, it is cherry-picking evidence to support an a priori hypothesis, rather than building the hypothesis from the whole set of assembled evidence. Much of the evidence is mere supposition based on what must have happened in order to support the theory, as they implicitly admit by listing the matters that require more research.
That being said, my own interest is not with the particular facts of this case (there is plenty evidence of criminal malfeasance on the part of the Bush Administration without it), but how the controversy is symptomatic of how overweening state secrecy interferes with the average citizen's ability to be reasonably informed. This is not a problem that sprung into existence on 9/11/01. If you are sincerely curious about what our government might be concealing from you, I have a book for you. It is written by a senior editor of Jane's Defense Weekly; not a wild eyed 'conspiracy nut' by anyone's standard.
"The Hunt for Zero Point: Inside the Classified World of Antigravity Technology"
by Nick Cook
Check it out and I guarantee your view of 'conspiracy theories' and 'classified secrets' will be forever altered.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-10 07:35:38

Your conspiracy theory relies on bits and pieces of "circumstantial" evidence, much of which is contradictory in itself. These small quite insignificant of themselves, parts are somehow woven into a fantastical fairy tale, which could only happen in the movies, with the usual hollywood penchant for exaggeration and simplification.
The Fact that the normal laws of physics and decades of experience with fires, buildings and airplanes has to be ignored for the GRAND CONSPIRACY THEORY to exist is just nothing.
Natalie, who has Engineers in her Family, knows.
She will know post some blindingly simple probably off topic reply, which will make GOD and Rabbit, blink bemusedly and look at each other hopelessly.
Go and do this experiment for Rabbit Natalie, take a hairpin, a girl is bound to have a hair pin about, and a Rock. In fact take a hair pin and an IRON if you prefer. Take them up to the second story of a building, and drop them both at the same time. This is an important experiment, to help Natalie understand, the COMPLICATED science that she may otherwise feel is only the preserve of priestlike Engineers. they who hold the secrets of the universe. We must not question the engineers, they hold archaic knowledge which is beyond the fathom of ordinary mortals...Ah HA..
Rabbit shall reveal to Natalie some of the "Secrets" of the Engineers, but she must not tell others, no the secrets must be kept.
Another experiment but more basic which should at least partially prepare you for the results of the other experiment, Stand on a Chair, in the middle of the floor and on soft carpet. Not too soft or the chair might fall over.
Step off the chair and observe what happens.
You may wish to repeat this experiment several times to verify that the results are consistent.. Rabbit predicts that you will fall to the floor each and every time, imediately you place your self at the mercy of gravity. Don't just argue with Rabbit about this, or just ignore the fact, go and prove it to your self, so you will be better able to relate what we are talking about to real life that way. We will try and do this expreriment with the aid of a pillow, or a bean bag later, but that is stage two of the explanation, little Natalie.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-10 02:28:24

Even an average demo would have brought them down at almost free fall, a little faster is sharp work.
As for constantly bleating "But such a huge hoax could never have been perpetrated on so many people and so many experts in the world"
My dear Natalie, it has not been successfully perpetrated, that is the whole reason we are able to debate this with such a wealth of well argued material at hand. The whole fraud has never convinced more than half the people and that number is dwindled way below half now.
Even though an enormous effort has gone into perpetrating and covering up this crime, the evidence of the truth is still overwhelming as you will see. The entire structural evidence from all the crime scenes was disposed of contrary to any normal investigative procedures and its disposal has itself raised serious issues of obstruction of justice issues. The New York Fire Brigade has active and former members involved in actions which ar revealing more lies by governments and more cover-ups.
As for people coming forward, damn right they would, and that is why it is important to consider the stories of the MANY people who have come forward to prove the government complicity and conspiracy. Your theories about 19 Suicide Hijackers omits the 7 live "Hijackers" who were not even in the US. It omits the fact that tere is no evidence to put most of them on the flights, none at all, and this is odd since records about plane flights is normally pretty complete. Your Conspiracy Theory is not looking good Natalie.
Rabbit has not actually contended who exactly or how they ran 911. It is virtually unknowable to Rabbit, but he is sure of enough things to have no doubt that the Government knew about it and certain forces within the government conspired to ensure it happened in much the way it did.
That is a cautious approach Natalie, not a bombastic claim, as you are so fond of trying to attribute to Rabbit. .Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-10 02:07:57

Natalie would you mind not introducing anymore topics into this discussion until you been courtious enough to have dealt with rabbit's posts thus far. They include some very specific statements, all of which ahve immens bearing on the issue, and most of which you are ignoring.. You will note please Rabbit answers your every point and always has, actually.
You will complain about time, well it is you who is disseminating my little chicken. We are about four pages into rabbit repaeating the same points and none of them have been dealt with, they are even numbered, and they have been repeated in full three times. Does Natalie understand what is meant by Dissemination?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-10 01:47:26

Deal with the facts, stop quoting generic shill swill at the Rabbit. Ask someone to explain gravity to you Nat, that is the first step in understanding that there is a spedd at which those buildings could have fallen at, if gravity alone was responsible for their collapse. It is a very solid FACT, Natalie, Gravity is an old established Fact, among Earth residents.
It may surprise you to know Natalie, that Gravity is constant. It has a measured constant value, and via this we can calculate how fast something will fall. It matters not how heavy the thing is as it happens. Ask one of those engineere relatives to explain it to you. Or a highschool kid who is paying attention in science. They can explain to you why if you drop a stone weighing 10 grams and a steel beam weighing 10 tons from the same height at the same time they will both hit the ground at the same time.
If there is nothing at all to slow the fall, or speed it up that is how long it will take any object to fall a given distance. If there is air resistance, eg: a Feather, or leaf, which is usually a consequence of mass versus surface area, or if some other force acts to even partially counterract the force of gravity the speed of descent will be reduced. The acceleration reduced, or stopped. In the case of a standing building the force of Gravity is in obeyance. Fully counterracted.
In the case of free fall there is nothing at all to counterract the forces. Like for instance, walls, steel structures and all the "Stuff" that goes into making a Skyscraper of the scale of the WTCs.
The buildings came down at virtually free fall speed, one or more may actually have come down faster tha free fall, and a "perfect demolition would do that.
NOTHING ELSE COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BROUGHT DOWN THREE BUILDINGS IN A ROW AT EVEN CLOSE TO FREE FALL SPEED, let alone even faster.
Rabbit says so.................................................GOD SAYS SO
By the way Rabbit fails to understand your problems with URLS on ITT they always work for him.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-10 01:41:35

Natalie your last point first,
"I have to assume now, that you must also believe the first attempt to topple the Twin Towers in 1993 was carried out by, or with the knowledge, consent and/or help of the U.S. Government. Do you have any information or speculation on THAT event?"
.......What the hell are you talking about. Why must I believe this? Why must Rabbit have any opinion about it? You are certainly determined to go off on tangents when you can;t deal with facts.
Your source will be dealt with next, but it actually doesn't prove anything if it is taken as gospel. It is still opinion, and it is well and truly challenged.
The thing is you silly girl, no qualifications are needed to study and understand the significance of what are wholly provable facts.
What part about the following do you fail to follow the significance of?
If Natalie has Engineers in her family as has Rabbit, (half his wifes family are engineers, Danish Engineers and among the best in the world as it happens) So what. Why don't you ask them to explain the significance of the following. Assuming as it appears it is beyond your limited understanding.
1.Each WTC building collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed (approximately 10 seconds or less).
2.Each building collapsed, for the most part, into its own footprint.
3.Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by gravity alone ("Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-10 01:39:54

Rabbit,
"Edging Towards Disaster with Iran" by Mike Whitney is the article you recommended, right? The URL only got me as far as OpEd home page, but I found and read this article, which was insightful and informative.
Yes, I believe that the neo-cons have the intent of taking over Iran as well. It borders and intersects (falls partly within) the 'golden triangle' that contains 60% of the worlds recoverable oil. I would hope that the evil neo-con agenda falls apart before they can realize their plan. We've screwed the Iranians around enough. They deserve a chance to work out their problems and establish their society without our undermining interference. We'll have to see how it all plays out. Will America's military/industrial shadow-government take control of the entire Middle East?Posted by whit on 2005-10-10 00:49:33

These are a LOT of awfully smart people to try to hide a deliberate implosion operation from:
"These experts in tall building design, steel structure behavior, fire protection engineering, blast effects, and structural investigations were impaneled on a building performance assessment team (BPAT). This BPAT was sponsored by a partnership of FEMA, SEI/ASCE, the state of New York, the New York City Department of Design and Construction, and the Structural Engineers Association of New York. The team was also supported by the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations, the National Fire Protection Association, the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, the American Concrete Institute, the American Institute of Steel Construction, the Masonry Society, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology."
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html
(don't forget to close those URL spaces!) Ahem, ITT.
Engineers are some of the most independent, practically minded people I've known. They are not typically subject to bribery, or likely to participate in cover-ups. Integrity would be my vote for the word that best describes their core characteristic. I happen to have several of them in my immediate family, and while they all to a person happen to hate GWB with a passion, non of them subscribe to the notion that he, or agents of the U.S. government were complicit in the events of 9/11. It simply doesn't add up to them from an engineering, evidentiary or common sense standpoint.
I have to assume now, that you must also believe the first attempt to topple the Twin Towers in 1993 was carried out by, or with the knowledge, consent and/or help of the U.S. Government. Do you have any information or speculation on THAT event?Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-09 22:36:08

Hi Whit.
Rabbit dropped a good article on another thead. Thorough statement of Iran situation in context. Here it is. It is a distilled version of what Rabbit has been saying about these things for a while.
Edging to Disaster with Iran.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_051007_edging_towards_disas.htm
by Mike WhitneyPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-09 21:49:29

Natalie your claims from NIST investigators are just that. They have been successfully challenged in the last reference I gave you and I mean successfully. You are suffering from the terminal disease of believing everything a government claims is the truth. History alone shows this to be LUNACY.
Not that Rabbit merely doubts just because the Government says it. If what they say is not consistent with reality, then Rabbit feels quite justified. In the case of 911, not even other governments believe the USA. Did Nat know the EU and individual nations have lodged official refusals to accept the 911 official story? That is an uncommon step, very uncommon. There was a bit of that about WACO as it happens too.
Nat stop the waffling, you do not have to quote what other say about "Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMAPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-09 21:30:10

Natalie you are stubbirnly using that word FACT to describe opinion again.
Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-09 21:11:51

Now Natalie stop the waffling exercise about the PM article. Rabbit was familiar with it as said and knows from his own study of it years ao it is rubbish as shown.
Now it is not normally considered good form or much point in attacking the credibility of the author or publication, but it is by no means a blanket rule. If as in this case it shows the magazine is of a certain bias, and that the author is also, "AND" that they have not actually made any contribution except to build and demolish straw men. Rabbit already sadi we can go through the PM's random assortment of claims, but most of theme will be moot since neither Rabbit nor any othet sensible people maintain such views anyway.
The comparison to Prisonplanet and Rense and ICH is totally wasted. First by referring to Jones and Prisonplanet as separate you "PROOVE" you hjave never even looked at the sites mentioned. If you did you would discover why Rabbit goes into paroxysms of laughter (Truly) everytime someone attacks the sites' integrity. they are "Collections" of articles, sourced from all over the net and the world. Some are opinon pieces and as often as not include a rebuttal from "one of yours". The opinion peices are sometimes in house and sometimes from others, including thousands of writers. Nobody gets anything published by those sites which does not check out in the first round. No un-referenced submissions, they are selective in terms of quality but Rense in particular shows restraint in making own views felt. Jones is a lot more flamboyant and opinionated, but his opinions are shared by more people than share yours probably. The proof is in the pudding Natalie, the PM article doesn't address anything of significance it was produced as a generic challenge to alternative theories about 911 and as such never made a scrap of difference, both because of obvious ommissions and equally obvious over emphasis placed upon totally irrelevant and minor details. The thing is, even though it was discredited for all the above reasons, it yet failed to address itself to any serious alternative theory or the evidence upon which they are formed. Some like your self have continued to quote it, in the hopes it will fool someone who knows no better, but it has never withstood any challenges and those few challenges offerred were but the tip of the iceberg.
It did not actually bother anyone in the Truth movement. You mistake the thorough response by many like ICH, WRH, JONES and dozens more as meaning it was important. It was simply being thoroughly debunked and as such it is the closest anyone has ever come to mounting any sort of challenge to the 911 truth movement.
Do not assume that because Rabbit posts one or another source that he is being particularly selective, there are many more to choose from.
The proof is in the pudding, Facts, established, Opinions built upon Facts are at least reasonable. Opinions, Theories which fly in the face of FACTS are dead, undefendable.
Natalie, you are going to have to be more careful about saying things like.......Alex Jones said that the seismic spikes are " Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-09 21:02:17

Rabbit trys to remember to copy his posts before hitting the Submit button. Often the most work is the one he forgets, and boing, the electrons escape and run off into the ethers. No returns when this happens and if one considers it there is an explanation.
Probably filters in the system, ITTs or "THEM" which re-routs whole posts into a one way door. Who or what is behind the door?
Rabbit has a computer which he values for it's virtual imperviousness to hacking. This comptuter crashes in response to anything unexpected. Quite handy because several hacking attempts have been averted and detected that way. If Rabbit even thinks in a certain mood, the thing crashes I swear. Yet it hardly ever crashes for Rabbit, unless as said something weirds the computer out. Then it hits the floor with it's poor wee cyber arms over it's cyber head. Rabbit must pick it up gntly and coax it back into life, after which it tells Rabbit all about the scary thing it felt in the darkness. Much is darkness to such a small computer.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-09 20:00:46

I have to give you credit, Rabbit, you did comprehensively address the PM article in response to my inquiry. It's evident to me that the article was viewed as a significant credibility threat by the "what really happened" community, judging from their strenuous rebuttals to it.
In attacking the motives and credibility of the publisher and the authors of the PM article, perhaps you've waived your previously assumed right not to have the same directed at such sources as Alex Jones and prisonplanet.com, or Jeff Rense and Rense.com.
One complaint put forth seems to be that the PM article is mostly focused on claims that level-headed conspiracy theorists have long ago dismissed as unsupportable. That may be true for a few aspects, but most of the major current claims put forth by you, Alex and others are indeed addressed directly by PM, and quite effectively IMHO:
CLAIM: A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims that seismic spikes are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."
FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context." (he misrepresented his source)
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition."
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"
FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building.Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-09 19:33:41

(P3) I meant to add towards the end of P2 some emphasis on:
"SINCE BEFORE 9-11" ...since it suggest some prior planning was afoot.Posted by whit on 2005-10-09 17:59:39

Tell Us Who Fabricated the Iraq Evidence (P2)
by Norman Dombey
A clue to the ancestry of these black arts can be found in 1980, when right-wing Republicans wanted Ronald Reagan elected. They publicised a story that Billy Carter, the then President Jimmy Carter's colourful brother, had received $50,000 (Posted by whit on 2005-10-09 17:55:56

Published on Sunday, October 9, 2005
by The Independent
Tell Us Who Fabricated the Iraq Evidence (P1)
by Norman Dombey
President Bush's principal adviser Karl Rove is to be questioned again over the improper naming of a CIA official. Mohamed ElBaradei, accused by the American right of being insufficiently aggressive, wins the Nobel Peace Prize for his stalwart work at the helm of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Pentagon official Larry Franklin pleads guilty to passing on classified information to Israel. Just a normal week in politics. But there is a thread linking these events and it is Iraq.
Politicians tell us they acted in good faith on the road to war, and maybe they did, but that leaves a prickly question: who was so keen to prove that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat that they forged documents purporting to show that he was trying to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger to develop nuclear weapons? The forgery was revealed to the Security Council by ElBaradei. That was not an intelligence error. It was a straightforward lie, an INVENTION intended to mislead public opinion and help start a war.
At the beginning of 2001, a few weeks before George Bush took office, there was a break-in at the Niger embassy in Rome. Strangely, nothing of value was taken. Months later came 9/11 and a month after that, as George Bush wondered how to get back at the terrorists, a report from the Italian security service (Sismi) reached the CIA: Iraq was seeking to buy uranium.
Disappointingly for the neocons, the CIA sent Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to check the story: he reported that it was nonsense. When the story was repeated by Bush, Wilson went public. His wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame, was then outed by the White House. Hence Rove's predicament.
An organisation called the Office of Special Plans (OSP) was set up in the Pentagon by Douglas Feith, a former consultant to Israel's Likud party, to prepare for the war. In the words of Robert Baer, a distinguished former CIA man, it was a "competing intelligence shop at the Pentagon"..."if you didn't like the answer you're getting from the CIA". In short, bogus stories would get a second chance at the OSP.Posted by whit on 2005-10-09 17:54:53

Now this is getting really good.
That was an excellent bit of work and good, clear writing, Rabbit. Thanks!
I am involved in necessary distractions lately and haven't been able to engage much, but I check in regularly. Spent some time writing last night, but somehow all was lost when I submitted it. Perhaps because I left it sitting there so long as I answered phone calls. I dunno.
Anyway, keep hopping, Rabbit. Carrots to you!Posted by whit on 2005-10-09 08:31:13

Natlaie and Jay, please have a look at this source before you go further because it is just in and it's a beauty. If there is anything about the article whichyou don't understand Rabbit will be glad to explain it in very simple words. ...................All ineterested parties have a look at this lovely effort by the WRH team.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html
Hoppity hop says Rabbit, that site is the best on WTC 7 yet seen. Concise, it is concise, and to the point..........
Here it is again....
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.htmlPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-09 01:44:49

Where is the MONK?
.............................................^^............................................Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-09 00:02:08

http://batr.org/911/2005.03.01_arch.html
This is an excellent site, very information intensive and it deals with the Popular Mechanics article in it's historical perspective. The rest of the site is worth looking at if you intend to sriously challenge Rabbit. Be aware Natalie that Rabbit has the advantage of probably having read everything you have, but a whole lot more besides. Rabbit has a huge advantage, and he is not boasting about it. Rabbit is a sportsman, and would prefer a challenging hunt any day. You are being advised to be better armed. Of course if you are capable of having an open mind, you will be unable to maintain your present ideas about 911 after having gone through the things you have already been given above. Not just checking they exist, but reading them, questioning the facts they present if you can and form an opinion about what is written, not just about who wrote it. Rabbit has said it before Nat. No qualifications are needed to tell the truth.
I already know how open minded and yet sceptical a group of people the 911 truth movement is. We don't have all the answers, but we have a hell of a lot more than those who believe the official THEORY. We can absolutely, there is no question the official theory is dead in the water. Babe it didn't even float at launch. It went straight off the slip hit the water and kept going down until it hit bottom. There it has remained. Except the bottom has continued to rise adn the ship of Lies is nearly buried by the silt of actual evdience which has continued to trickle out.
It is sad to think so many are first going to wake up to the lies when they read the Neo-con JUNTA has been charged with the whole shebang. Organising, paying for and allowing 911 to happen as it did. Then will follow the illegal wars which were launched on the basis of lies and down it will come.................
Natalie the MSM in America has started to wake up to the fact that a watergate style event is about to burst upon the scene. That is happening right now. You are in for a hell of a lot more than that before this is over, don't trust me. Just sit back and wait, it won't be long now.
http://www.thinkprogress.org/leak-scandal
-------------------------------------------
When Popular Mechanics set out to "debunk the myths" surrounding the events of 9/11 they ignored the myth created and propagated by the US government itself.
One of the wilder stories circulating about Sept 11 ... is that it was carried out by 19 fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that they "hate our freedoms."
Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell. ...
These crackpots even contend that the extremist Bush regime was caught unawares by the attacks, had no hand in organizing them, and actually would have stopped them if it had been able. Blindly ignoring the stand-down of the US Air Force, the insider trading on airline stocks Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-08 23:54:12

POPULAR MECHANICS.
Rabbit read the Popular Mechanic article when it first came out, and independantly came to all the same conclusions as follows. The most obvious thing to Rabbit was that most of the "Alternative theories" they were debunking, were not widely held and were already considered to be disinformation by many of us then. So these clown set up an strw man and proceeded to attack it, without even much success then as I recall, Rabbit is as mentioned not altogether foreign to exngineering and physics and on these points alone they show ignorance.
We can deal with each of the Popular Mechanics 16 points, but most of them are simply not relevant, because they are not views held by Rabbit or any serious 911 truth seekers.
The following source is posted because it gives background on the author of the article, and the ownership of the "Rag" concerned. Both points which will be seen as relevant.
Don't wait for the MP3 download unless you care to listen to Alex blathering on. Relevant too, but Rabbit can't stand the accent sorry. Maybe it is easier for Yanks to listen to.
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/090305alexresponds.htm
-------------------------------------
The Hearst-owned Popular Mechanics magazine takes aim at the 9/11 Truth Movement (without ever acknowledging it by that name) with a cover story in its March 2005 edition. Sandwiched between ads and features for monster trucks, NASCAR paraphernalia, and off-road racing are twelve dense and brilliantly designed pages purporting to debunk the myths of 9/11.
The article's approach is to identify and attack a series of claims which it asserts represent the whole of 9/11 skepticism. It gives the false impression that these claims, several of which are clearly absurd, represent the breadth of challenges to the official account of the flights, the World Trade Center attack, and the Pentagon attack. Meanwhile it entirely ignores vast bodies of evidence showing that only insiders had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out the attack.
The article gives no hint of the put options on the targeted airlines, warnings received by government and corporate officials, complicit behavior by top officials, obstruction of justice by a much larger group, or obvious frauds in the official story. Instead it attacks a mere 16 claims of its choosing, which it asserts are the "most prevalent" among "conspiracy theorists." The claims are grouped into topics which cover some of the subjects central to the analysis of 9-11 Research. However, for each topic, the article presents specious claims to divert the reader from understanding the issue. For example, the three pages devoted to attacking the Twin Towers' demolition present three red-herring claims and avoid the dozens of points I feature in my presentations, such as the Twin Towers' Demolition.
The article brackets its distortion of the issues highlighted by 9/11 skeptics with smears against the skeptics themselves, whom it dehumanizes and accuses of "disgracing the memories" of the victims.
More important, it misrepresents skeptics' views by implying that the skeptics' community is an undifferentiated "army" that wholly embraces the article's sixteen "poisonous claims," which it asserts are "at the root of virtually every 9/11 alternative scenario." In fact much of the 9/11 truth community has been working to expose many of these claims as disinformation.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/
-------------------------------------------Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-08 23:32:33

Anyone who wants to see a recent re-hash and re-examination of details should see here, it is very well referenced and sourced.
-------------------------
FBI Claims 84 Videos Show NO Flight 77 Impact
.............Of course they don't.. Nothing to see here folks, move along................There are no planes on the videos so nobody needs to see them.
That is probably enough for Natalie? Is it OK that the FBI just says nothing to see and withholds the evidence? Rabbit was of the opinion that US courts were the law, the FBI is only there to enforce the law, not dictate terms by which things shall be established or not.
http://www.rense.com/general67/fbicl.htmPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-08 22:52:41

On the Barbara Olson story. It is now a couple weeks old and was actually corrected very early on about the Polish/Austrian border mistake. Now actually this in itself makes the story just a tad more believable. You see any deliberate misinfo of this scale would never have made such a basic mistake.
Now the source is Tom Flocco, and that is not a good enough reason to ignore it as some claim. These are wishful thinking because Flocco has a good track record as it happens. He is repeating something which has been told to him and since it does indeed involve intelligence agencies, unverified sources are the order of the day. Now nobody rabbit knows is seriously accepting this story at this point. However we are not so stupid as to ignore all of the reasons why it may well turn out to be true.
This is the advantage of making ones own opinions. You can collect information sometimes without having to form an opinion.
Rabbit's opinions about 911, are simply those he is able to form from verifiable facts. This is why he did not discount the missile hitting the pentagon, nor did he accept it. The reports about radiation down wind were equally filed away. The fact of DU being in the wings of some aircraft as found by David actually makes such Radiation readings more likely does it not? this then vindicates those people who claimed there was radiation. The problems arise again however because it seems that the plane that is alleged to have struck the Pentagon would not have had such DU counterweights, but a military A3 would have. This is interesting, because the wheels seen at the pentagon site are more likely to be an A3, in fact a carrier based one from the size of radius to diameter. The engine shown in pictures at thje pentagon would also have suited an A3. The engine in the picture at the pentagon is certainly too small and wrong design for a 737 (Sorry if the model wrong, means flight 77)Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-08 22:45:09

Rabbit just hadn't seen WB for twenty years is all, didn't get the Elmer Fudd ref at first. Am not a sensitive Rabbit, actually I am the most self contained ego, nobody upsets Rabbit by their own choice, just his.
The Popular mechanics Article is not taken seriously by researchers and I will be glad to show you why. Rabbit did not realise that you expected him to even bother with it, sorry. That will be next on my posts. It is a legendary joke though and Rabbit is surprised you don't realise it. You must not be very well informed on such issues or that Popular Mechanics is a very unreliable source for truth when dealing with major political events. It is thoroughly discredited on so many issues over the years that any engineer who tries to use it's articles for anything but a coffee coaster is a joke. You'll see. As for the sources you were given they include all there is to know about what happened and very few of the actual FACTS can be questioned they are what is in the public domain. The speculation and theorising which is included about the meaning of the known FACTS is important, but you will be wasting yours and our time if you begin by trying to question the theories. You are expected to verify the FACTS and query them if you feel they can be. But we will establish FACTS and then we will relate these to our opinions or theories.
Now this is a loaded dice, it cannot be denied. The dice is loaded in favour of a logical debate, and a debate which will inevitably debunk some theories while it gives support for others. That means, in a debate, someone is going to lose. That cannot be helped Natalie, since we disagree. In the end, if we are able to arrive at a better understanding of the TRUTH or even just identify LIES, or misperceptions, we will all win.
Rememeber Rabbit has his own very specific opinions. They are not standardised, or predictable. As far as what happened on 911, I am sure of several things only. The "three" WTCs did not fall to the ground simply because a plane flew into two of them. I know this without any doubt, anybody who understands even the most basic physics or engineering, or history of such things knows this.
That is not to say that there aren't people who have qualifications who are backing the official theory. Just as with DU there are people who have a vested interest or who can be threatened into lying even. In the end it is the Majority of the opinions of the Professions which will decide, as well as simple physics in this case. The truth is that the official story has only been arrived at by ignoring some of the most enormous pieces of evidence. For example the fact that WTC 7 came down in an identical fashion. The fact that credible witnesses claimed they heard and saw explosions before and after the planes hit. On e witness has 27 others who back his story, including one who was onjured in a bomb blast before the first plane hit.
Natalie these are not just little airy fairy claims of phonecalls and records showing phonecalls were made. Such phonecalls are no more than hearsay, they prove nothing, but especially they have no bearing on whether or not the US government was involved.
Besides the phonecalls, including the Barbara Olson claims have always been questioned since they do not actually fit the official theory as outline above.
The ignoring of evidence, withholding evidence and numerous falsehoods which have been "Proven" to have been uttered, are what helps make a case for the US government's involvment, on speculation alone. There is lots more evidence that will allow this to be taken beyond mere speculation of course. For now Rabbit is content to let the air out of the tyres of the official theory for you.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-08 22:31:30

Eulogy for Elmer :
Old friends are the best friends.
Old antagonists are the best antagonists.
See you on the other side.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-08 14:34:26

Rabbit,
I'm preparing to delve into your massive stack of "everything you know is wrong" (hey, Firesign Theatre 1974!) literature, but in the mean time, I don't believe you've attempted to address the Popular Mechanics series I initially posted de-bunking most of the alternative theories about 9/11. Do you have any plans to do so?
There seems to be a couple problems with the initial story about Barbara Olson being arrested. Seems there is actually no such thing as a Polish-Austrian border, and the currency she was supposedly carrying hadn't been legal tender since 2002.
Any further thoughts or revelations re: Barbara Olson?
P.S. Just kidding about all that kill da wabbit stuff. I certainly don't condone killing wabbits, but that IS an awfully catchy tune, don't you agree?Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-08 12:28:12

What kind of Ammo would Elmer be using Natalie..................................................Rabbit looking up..........................Ears half raised......................big eyes blinking innocently................................^^........................................
On with 911, Rabbit hopes Nat and Jay, and others, are reading lots of interesting stuff from the interesting sources already given who use verifiable facts and science and things to debunk the official theory and allow us to forulate other theories which have the benefit of accounting for all the facts we do at least have.
Or at the least challenge Rabbit on the TEN big bangers, re-printed, using billions of co-operative electrons, for your perusal and consideration, so that he may source and explain their relevance,....................................Don't make Rabbit stamp his Angry Foot...Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-08 02:42:10

From another thread, a great site Rabbit found again. Well presented and huge resource highlighting some of the biggest lies of the century from the master of deceit.
GEORGE BUSH LIES about IRAQ.
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/iraq_lies.htmlPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-08 01:42:54

Wabbit can eveolve too, does Elmer and his Masters think Rabbit's just sit around waiting for the next weapon. Rabbits had become naturalised West Australians long before the Rabbit Proof fence was completed.
Enough Godish blasphemy, my neice will be onto us and we'll all be told to get down on our knees and pray.
Like the Elmer song.
Rabbit imagines a GWB, in bog cowboy boots and a huge Stetson, jumping up and down and yelling about a war on Wabbits............... WOW ......................
Those Wabbits hate our freedoms, they want to destroy our way of life and they have a false god.
"God told me to destroy all Rabbits and by God I am going to do it, right after I've destroyed all Muslims"Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-08 00:25:31

Good God, David, I'm sorry to break this to you, and if you weren't aware I'm sorry you had to hear it on of all places an Internet comment board, but Elmer is no longer with us. Firearms mishap....which by itself of course would have been harmless, but for the simultaneous and extremely rare failure of the automatic animation immortality generator. (AAIG)
Fortunately, the bloodline continues. In keeping with the theory of evolution, a superior son emerges ..... far more focused, far more dedicated and armed with superior weapons enhanced with depleted Stratocaster technology.
His anthem hither:
http://tinyurl.com/7t6vl
Wabbits in Australia especially beware. His name, as I am told, is a clue to his preferred "stomping" grounds.Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-07 23:59:40

God help me.
Fair use disclaimer.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-07 22:31:18

.. continued .. part two ..
Do you believe in a better dayDo you have a faith in a golden wayIf you do then we must come together this dayCome together as one unitedTelevision audienceBrought together the sound of my voiceUnited united financially united sociallyUnited spiritually and all possible waysThrough the power of moneyAnd the power of your prayersWhat God wants God gets God help us allGod wants dollarsGod wants centsGod wants pounds shillings and penceGod wants guildersGod wants kronerGod wants Swiss francsGod wants French francsOui il veut des francs francaisGod wants escudosGod wants pesetasDon't send liraGod don't want small potatoesGod wants small townsGod wants painGod wants clean up rock campaignsGod wants widowsGod wants solutionGod wants TVGod wants contributionsWhat God wants God gets God help us allGod wants silverGod wants goldGod wants his secretNever to be toldGod wants gigolosGod wants giraffesGod wants politicsGod wants a good laughWhat God wants God gets God help us allGod wants friendshipGod wants fameGod wants creditGod wants blameGod wants povertyGod wants wealthGod wants insuranceGod wants to cover himselfWhat God wants God gets God help us allPosted by David in Canada on 2005-10-07 22:28:34

The guy was a bum. He hung out in the pub with the guys and probably enjoyed a few tokes of wisdom weed of an evening. Frankly Rabbit finds it hard to beleive he didn't get his end away there a few times, he was among the right crowd. He was probably such a top bloke he never talked about it afterwards, is all, so the God Squad who PREFER to talk about it, just figured he was a virgin.
The guy was definately a pacifist and Rabbit would be inclined to thump anyone who took a poke at himself, the first time, but then Rabbit is not a follower of Christ, so much as we are just friends. We've shared the same Bong and the same wench once or twice.
Rabbit read about the Busherising Messiah crap the Chimp amused the Pallestinians with.
Can you imagine some of the smirks and comments among the Pallestinian delegation when Shrub is expounding such crap?
GOD...... it makes Rabbit proud.......... he is not OUR president.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-07 22:19:54

Right on, Brother David. God wants blood... any fool knows that. 'And what was this crap about Jesus identifying with the poor and down-trodden. That's a communist plot to try to get us to share. Blood, power, profit... Praise God... and us (some of us) his chosen ones.
Published on Friday, October 7, 2005
by The Independent
Bush: God Told Me to Invade Iraq
President 'revealed reasons for war in private meeting'
by Rupert Cornwell
"...Former Palestinian foreign minister Nabil Shaath says Mr Bush told him and Mahmoud Abbas, former prime minister and now Palestinian President: "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did."
And "now again", Mr Bush is quoted as telling the two, "I feel God's words coming to me: 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.' And by God, I'm gonna do it."
Now is this guy a total sociopath or just psychotic and delusional. God only knows!
God probably told him to rig the last two presidential elections too.Posted by whit on 2005-10-07 21:58:08

Truth for me.
Had to get it in there on the God Squad thread.
Sorry to interrupt Rabbit.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-07 21:53:14

.. continued ...
quoted from :
http://www.yhwh.com/
p.s. Though it pains me to do so, the numbers of bitter emails I've received forces me to make the following statement:
The preceding piece is sarcasm. It states the exact opposite of what it really means, in order to make a point. I'm sorry if you didn't get it.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-07 21:48:02

.. continued ..
Just think if we had actually been practicing what this coward preached for these last 2000 years. No crusades (where the Real Church killed millions of the infidel Muslims, praise God.) No Lutheran sponsored Holocaust. The Roman empire would have turned into a peace-loving state when Constantine became emperor 1700 years ago. No American civil war, as the 2 Christian sides would have resolved their differences peacefully. It's inconceivable.
Sure, occasionally the whole peaceful resistance thing gets lucky and works, like when Gandhi helped free the entire Indian continent from hundreds of years of British oppression without a single gunshot or raised fist. Hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, everyone knows that. But he was only a pagan Hindu, instead of a real Christian. And India finally came to its senses anyway, and developed their own military and nuclear bombs. So there.
It warms my heart to attend Memorial Day Church services, especially on or near military bases. To see all the people who have lost lives & limb preserving our freedoms and way of life, now THAT is God's blessing. THAT is true courage. THAT is true patriotism. THAT is true Christianity, not the crap Jesus was saying.
As a part of the War on Terrorism I really think we need to reprint our Bibles, and remove these shamefully cowardly passages. They could possibly dampen the spirits of our fighting men and women.
Of course, there are a few others that might need editing. Just read this shameful display of cowardice:
Mt 26:47 While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people.
48 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: "The one I kiss is the man; arrest him."
49 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" and kissed him.
50 Jesus replied, "Friend, do what you came for." Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him.
51 With that, one of JesusPosted by David in Canada on 2005-10-07 21:44:28

Had to share this opinion from :
http://www.yhwh.com/
Jesus was a loser and a coward
It's time the truth be told. Jesus was a loser and a coward, it's just that plain and simple. Just listen to this tripe:
Mt 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-07 21:41:35

GOD does not care about anybody at all more than anybody else. Then. Try and censor that.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-07 19:52:41

Rabbit re-posts this since it is relatively short and deserved mopre than the dustbin of history on this thread,..........Rabbit stamps angry foot!
Some of the FACTS which Rabbit considers crucial to forming any opinions about how the WTCPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-07 19:49:33

Among my other varied reading, I'm re-reading "Crossing the Rubicon" to re-consider info and freshen up my thinking.
Jay, if you attempt this 600 page read, you will feel compelled to dimiss this guy as a "comspiracy wing-nut" (if I recall correctly your term). However, I hope you give it a shot. He has 60 pages of appendix, endnotes, and references. While it is not recommended that you 'believe' or 'agree' blindly with any conclusions, it is recommended that you check out the information made available with an open but critical mind, consider its implications, analyze it for yourself, and draw you own conclusions. The book is a rich source of referenced information, and presents a very wide and deep overview of our current predicament... for your humble consideration.Posted by whit on 2005-10-07 07:37:13

Damn has the God Squad caved in now we're town to Facts?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-07 04:27:06

Rabbit's wonky computer now begins the task of downloading the free book. Thanks Whit.
If it was the flash computer at home it would have already done it and made Rabbit a cup of coffee. Rabbit must make his own coffee here to.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-07 00:35:34

How about a free book, Folks?
A little education never hurt the effort of trying to converge on a more objective version of reality.
http://gangsofamerica.com/read.htmlPosted by ljwhit on 2005-10-06 23:32:53

So is it possible that Rabbit could have some feedback from any who feel the official 911 has some credibility, when the above ten point Rabbit post is taken into account. I've been waiting for the chance to prove any of those contentions.
This is important to any who wish to argue that what the USA is doing in it's War on Terror. There are those of us who think of it as a War of Terror and one of the crucial cases upon which we have formed this opinion, is that the official story of 911 does not stand ANY scrutiny, it ignores a whole herd of PINK ELEPHANTS in the living room at it's best and is provably wrong, in FACT, as well as scientific analysis.
Thye whole lie is unravelling as we speak. There are court cases and indigtments being handed down now which will lead to very serious questions being raised as well as some very shocking answers being found.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-06 21:26:07

" Now Can we talk about 911 and how those with a Faith based argument use it to justify making war on entire nations? "
Rabbit has brought the thread back full circle.
" Fundamentalist bullies cannot be appeased. they must be confronted. "Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-06 20:39:35

lb,
I stand corrected
:)Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-06 20:34:26

Now Can we talk about 911 and how those with a Faith based argument use it to justify making war on entire nations?
How many women with PMS does it take to change a lightbulb?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-06 20:01:07

You didn't use the word Banned, the exact post will be quoted later when Rabbit has had time to check, and if wrong I will say so too.
"abusive, insulting, and yes threatening words for me and others were borne of your inability to effectively defend your position"
...Natalie the thread stands yet and any can see that Rabbit's words were justifiably harsh but as far as Flaming on the net goes, mild in all but their effectiveness. Besides that those who know Rabbit know he is none of the things you accuse him of. Others have actually been more directly abusive of both you and Roger, they just swore at you and ignored you henceforth.
"But after I read that you were banned, (I believe the announcement was on another thread), I thought yeah, he shouldnPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-06 19:56:33

oops....Rabbit meant you and DU were the only things they had in common.
Now if you are not connected to Roger you have to realise that someone was pulling monkey tricks, and what about Pale Rider? the same thing happened and he was very polite. But his info was dynamite, and somebody didn't want it being said. Now how can you feel good about supporting somebody who is clearly pulling such dishonest tricks if you are yourself honest? Rabbit even admitted whenever he knew other posters, before being accused, which was silly since they were admitted Rabbit friends, two were anyway. Rabbit does not want to believe Nat complained about him at all. It is however necessary for Nat to consider the consequences of the complaints which were certainly made by someone about the Unnatural Disaster thread, thus making you look like the culprit. Besides which it must be remembered that there was obviously nothing to complain about after all, Rabbit - Not Guilty.....
The co-incidence of your near simultaneous postings has actually been a common feature since early in the thread. Also the tag teaming when one or the other was confronted with an unavoidable obstacle......................Rabbit does not believe that there is any such thing as co-incidence except as an observed occurrence. Things happen in CO-Incidence, there is always a reason. We may not always know that reason.
Rabbit has speculated upon one reason for the co-incidences, you say these do not correspond with truth. Maybe so. It is of no consequence really. You have been flogged dear girl, none would disagree upon reading the DU thread, but you can claim that as a victory if it feels better. GWB claims Iraq as a Victory after all.
If you are all rabbit claimed Nat, eg: a Shill, that does not stop you presenting any evidence to support your claims. It does however affect the way in which others will view you and your opinions. Your evidence was always examined by others and it was always found wanting. As in the case of the flight 93 above the source often proved only that some fact you claimed had been reported somewhere. Even if it established the FACT, this did not at any point build a case for the continued use of Nuclear Waste as a Weapon. We are here examining FACTS and how to relate these to 911. Proving a Fact as such is only a start, you must use that Fact, in league with other Facts to establish a credible theory.
It is also important to remember that most of us are sophisticated enough to realise the importance of "Internet Propaganda" and just how much resources are currently being expended to reduce the amount of open discussion and orderly debate about important issues. So if you merely say that such idea's as Shills and Disinfo agents is crazy you will be demonstrating that you have something to hide. Google it anybody who doesn't understand.
To be taken seriously you need to admit that Ramjet is one, he is long since ID'd, years ago. You have seen the evidence of it, and equally so if you were not one who complained about either I or Pale Rider. If you can admit this but still say you were acting independantly Rabbit will extend the benefit of the doubt even further.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-06 19:22:23

New Word for the Day : posted for the benefit of those who did not know what it meant (me) and those to lazy to look it up :
risible
1. Relating to laughter or used in eliciting laughter.
2. Eliciting laughter; ludicrous.
3. Capable of laughing or inclined to laugh.
Thank you Luminous Beauty.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-06 19:13:42

Ha Ha Hee Hee Ho Ho
Thank you to Luminous Beauty and Jay for lightening the mood.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-06 19:06:40

You avoided the Wikipedia source and it's message for a long time actually. You then tried to talk your way around it as you do now. The source was merely one of those offerred to show why the use of Nuclear Waste, Depleted Uranium was banned by all civilised nations. The only exceptions now being USA and Britain. Nat they did establish the nature of this as a WAR CRIME. You are re-writing history a bit here but Rabbit refers any doubters to the thread. You see I will not be using any more of this thread to deal with what amounts only to "Filler' or 'Smoke and Mirrors' when the real issues we had reached was 911, and that was why you came here Nat. Rabbit said already he would drop all the old stuff and begin anew if you wished. Now beyond this brief reply, which is all it is, not intended as a challenge. Natalie is hereby permitted by Rabbit, to be anybody she wants and Rabbit will goo along with it for now. It was suggested that you proved Rabbit wrong on your name, it should be so easy after all. It was only ever presented as a theory and you have never seriously challenged it, that doesn't make abbit a liar, merely wrong. All I need is proof to admit it. But you are being given the benefit of the doubt........
Natalie says:
"If all such resolutions were followed, we would be required to destroy every weapon in our arsenal, and the population of Israel would be forced to devolve into sea dwelling creatures."
....Let us not get hysterical please, this is bunk and you know it. These resolutions are very specific and there is more than just these UN Resolutions which establish the world opinion on DU. There are a lot more than the three people you and Roger keep on trying to discredit who are involved in the push against DEPLETED URANIUM weapons. The people outnumber the PRO Depleted Uranium crown by thousands to one, which is what makes your small pickings at individuals so laughable.
Natalie you gave a story about a woman who made certain claims. Rabbit pointed out it was not of the standard of evidence sceptical people would normally accept. This whilst accepting your 'eveidence' at face value. Rabbit then added some more FACTS extremely well presented which together with your facts actually damaged the official story of 911, which is what I promised to do afetr all.
Try not to waste time accusing Rabbit of disseminating. Rabbit is in fact a very goal oriented Rabbit who while not afraid of detailed analysis, is more inclined to strike as direct a path to the objective as is possible. You get no free opinions with Rabbit. I will pay for mine if required and you will be expected to pay for yours.
Facts are the currency.
Yes the moderators told Rabbit multiple complaints are needed, if it was an assumption I would have said so. They never told me they had recieved complaints, you and Roger did..............That is one of the reasons I knew it was you. ITT took ages to answer and the posts were all back up before I heard from them................Now think about that, and stop being silly. Rabbit is not concerned. Nat there were only two threads pulled, you were the only thing they had in common.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-06 19:00:51

Natalie Rabbit has always attempted to keep the debate as focussed and relevant as possible. It is yourself and Roger who introduced all the twists and turns, both directly and by avoiding straight answers to straight questions. That is history and awaits any appraisals on the relevant thread.
The first outing of Ramjet was of utmost importance in showing that a known Shill for the Pentagon lies was involved. At that point had you been open minded you would have read all the references given by people. Rabbit just did so last night, went through all the refs and sources given in just the first two pages, and Natalie there is no way anyone could have emerged after that with anything but a conviction that so called Depleted Uranium was an unnaceptable way to wage war.
That is important when releated to your claims of having tried to establish the truth. At the very least there had to be sufficient reasons to employ proper tersting of all soldiers, even this you have resisted.
Since you cannot even do this much for your troops, please stop coming off with ridiculous lines like this.
"play directly into our enemyPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-06 18:30:34

Oh. Yes. Getting back on thread.
An Evangelical Christian changes a light bulb by asking it to accept Jesus Christ as its personal Lord and Savior.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-06 15:49:13

Wrong.
It takes the entire bureau, working weeks of over-time to complete the necessary paperwork to file a report in which the light bulb is changed into a 'standardized area illumination device, IDN348992-B/H485mod3a(see attached file).'
How many Corp.Execs?
Two. One to make drinks and one to tell his assistant to tell his secretary to call an electrician.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-06 15:17:16

Q. How many government bureaucrats does it take to change a light bulb?
A) None.
1) it isn't in their union contract
2) that's someone else's job
3) I'm on my lunch breakPosted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-06 14:11:20

Since this thread is descending into the faintly risible, let me insert this lame joke I heard recently:
Q: How many free market ideologues does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Null. They just sit in the dark and wait for an invisible hand to change it for them.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-06 13:43:40

Natalie, I got the Elmer Fudd reference right away (my child like nature, hehe). Made me laugh. In fact, I made a reference, elswhere, that even though Wile E. Coyoyte was a super genius he never caught the Road Runner. So be warned Natalie, hunting wabbits is twicky ...
" Elmer's role .. that of would-be hunter, dupe and foil for Bugs, would remain his main role forever after and although Bugs Bunny was called upon to outwit many more worthy opponents, Elmer somehow remained Bugs' classic nemesis, despite (or because of) his legendary gullibility, small size, short temper, and shorter attention span. Somehow knowing, not only that Elmer would lose, but knowing how he would lose, made the confrontation, counterintuitively, more delicious. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmer_FuddPosted by David in Canada on 2005-10-06 12:20:10

Natalie write : " ... if they do indeed have such Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-06 09:14:14

pg. 2 (sorry, David, this is not brief)
You asked me to give evidence for my belief that flight 93 was forced down by the actions of the passengers, and I provided it. Did the moderators TELL you that their policy demands more than one complaint, or are you just assuming it? Or did they simply say something generic like "We've received complaints"? If there WAS more than one complaint, one of the additional didn't come from me, as much as you want to believe it did.
"Then, almost immediately you and Roger both jumped back onto the Radioactive Wounds of War thread and pretended I had never existed, and so far pinned you both to the wall on the DU issue.
Coincidence, I assure you, and I dissent on the pinning claim. But as I've asked you before, even if all WAS as you imagine, how does that prevent you from simply presenting evidence to support your contentions? Why all the wasted time and space speculating on who I might be and who I might be associated with?
"Lo and Behold, the Ghost of Rabbit appeared spake unto you again. Both you and Roger proceeded to claim Rabbit had been banned and made direct claims that I had threatened and been excessively abusive. Interestingly at that point while others were writing and fighting for RabbitPosted by Natalie on 2005-10-06 04:25:38

What, no WB available out west down under? No baby talk condescension intended, just a reference to a certain bunny's arch rival. You earlier wrote:
"You have only now, after more than a month of Rabbit referring to you as one of the culprits who attempted to shut Rabbit down. It is a bit stale to now, finally to put up the sort of resistance you should have done at the time."
Rabbit, to respond to every twist and turn you present, or in this case invent, I'd be forced to call in sick every other day. I wasn't even sure if you were serious about it. But even if I HAD "resisted", what good would have come of it? I did forcefully and promptly protest your insistence on manufacturing my family ties with Roger, still yet to absolutely no avail.
"As for the Helbig naming, something similar bot with more nuance will be offerred shortly."
Ah, suspense. The oldest marketing trick in the book. Do you have an agreement with ITT to help prolong interest in their site? Do disclose.
"The reasons I called you on this, at the time, you may recall, are quite telling, and while they PROVE NOTHING, they do beat a very distinct path to your door. If at this stage it was not the case, you have left it a bit late to protest.....The reasons are as follows."
"Rabbit was engaged in in a somewhat spiteful, both sides, debate with Roger Ramjet. You were acting as his deputy, despite claiming neutrality. Let us not start denials of partisanship at this stage, please, we have been there and it is admitted by your self. Rabbit had finally managed to stump both Roger and yourself by posting the WIKIPEDIA entry about International Resolutions."
I simply agreed with Roger, AFTER doing my OWN research, that while DU certainly is not as benign as water, the picture painted by the article "Radioactive Wounds of War" is unrealistic, and preys on our natural fears of anything "radioactive". The horrific claims by Rokke, who was quoted in the article, and others of like mind and constant association, such as Lauren Moret, are over the top. They play directly into our enemy's hands and poison the debate. There WAS no stumping. I responded to your WIKIPEDIA link, pointing out that these particular resolutions by a U.N. subcommittee are not binding, and are the product of hatred and jealousy of America. If all such resolutions were followed, we would be required to destroy every weapon in our arsenal, and the population of Israel would be forced to devolve into sea dwelling creatures.
"Gone,both gone like the wind for days. At this alte stage of the game, (then) Rabbit had also posted on five more threads on ITT."
As it happens, I was on a home-based vacation the week I initially (and politely) offered my opinion on the relative dangers of DU. Any "gone-ness" was only due to the fact that the vacation ended. Sorry to disappoint, but it's no more mysterious than that.
"On three of these Rbbit was more rude to a few others, with not quite as much justification, though some. One of these people was WTH as a matter of fact. Another thread which had seen Rabbit was The Unnatural Disaster thread, where you had actually posted at that time also. On this thread Rabbit was loving and kind and had not actually abused anyone. The exception to the other threads was only that Rabbit mentioned the Radioactive Wounds of War thread and DU as an iddue."
I'm sorry, you're totally losing me here. Believe me, your suspicions have absolutely nothing to do with me, and I doubt any others.
"When the ban on Rabbit came it saw my posts removed from the Radioactive Wounds of War thread, and the Unnatural Disaster thread, simultaneously. The site moderators pull people based on more than one complaint, by the way, Roger could not have done it alone."
continued.......Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-06 04:20:30

Rabbit may be wrong about some of his speculation, but on many levels? We shall see.
Rabbit knows you love him.
What now the Nat is being condescending? Rabbit reaches a paw of equality down to Nat, who now calls him a baby?
Don't be flip. We are big Rabbits and Girls.
The power is not in the words, but in the truth. The rest is just art........or not.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-05 18:56:03

Natty now no timey to whitey, must go workey, but Natty angwee with wabby, wong on so many wevvels.
Natty wuv wabby, still yet.Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-05 09:41:16

Some of the FACTS which Rabbit considers crucial to forming any opinions about how the WTC's collapsed.
.1.Each WTC building collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed (approximately 10 seconds or less). Actually one was 8.7 seconds I think, but am seeking confirmation.
2.Each building collapsed, for the most part, into its own footprint.
3.Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by gravity alone ("Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-05 06:35:42

Rabbit noticed that, but didn't want to scare it away. Nice little electrons,....... be good to us.................David have you got any thing which clearlt shows the actual times taken for the buidings to collapse? Start to finish of the actual collapse?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-04 22:36:56

.. on a technical note .. it would seem that our gracious ITT hosts mhave made some formatting adjustments to the comments we post .. i.e. a one line space is a one line space .. back to reality .. but as always brief is best ..Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-04 21:29:16

Rabbit says : "Beware the lie, for as Rabbit had to teach his teenage son yesterday, to admit a mistake is relatively easy compared to having to admit a lie about a mistake.. The first time you lie you can have for free, after that, make sure your answer is the one you intend to stick to. "
Good advice for everyone. Go forth and sin no more.
PS. The poetry is nice.
" See Rabbit loves Batty Natty, she is nice when shePosted by David in Canada on 2005-10-04 18:47:48

Rabbit would also point out thyat Pale Rider sufferred a similar fate when he first confronted you both.
.
The truth if it be much different to this scenario, would have best been established when you were first asked for truth. As said this is very late in the game to challenge something which has already clearly been a serious threat to your credibility for a while. You have been playing for keeps Nat, if you could have successfully challenged these facts why would you have waited so long?
.
Now be asurred that it is not my intention to use the DU thread to cause you any further discomfort. In the interests of truth, if there is a problem with the above "assumptions", of mine, then let us get them out of the way, otherwise let us move forward in debate. Rabbit has only ever been straight up with you. With this Hopper, what you see is what you get.
.
Rabbit does not wish to be unfair, especially to his beloved princess of darkness, but he is at this point a suspicious Rabbit, and with reason. Rabbit does have a few friends and you have met some, they actually agree about you, (They don't like you, though Rabbit does)
.
You are not only going to have to convinve Rabbit but they too might have some queries yet.
.
But, to a Light Warrior Rabbit, truth is more important than being right, so you are welcome to give me truth. Beware the lie, for as Rabbit had to teach his teenage son yesterday, to admit a mistake is relatively easy compared to having to admit a lie about a mistake..
.
The first time you lie you can have for free, after that, make sure your answer is the one you intend to stick to.
.
If you are not Natalie Helbig, then it will be easy for you to prove it, and it can be done privately if you wish. Rabbit would on his honour never say anything on thread but that he now believes you.
.
It is BTW maybe only a co-incidence but there is a rather specific pattern of postings between you and Roger yet. You are on this site simultaneously after days or weeks absence even yet.
.
Proves nothing on its own, but it sure doesn't detract from the overall impression.
.
Busy Rabbit day making boats, but this thread will be on and off loolked at all day.
.
See Rabbit loves Batty Natty, she is nice when she's Chatty, Rabbit is not being Catty..........hee...hee...........................^^.............................Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-04 17:45:18

Natalie,
.
You have only now, after more than a month of Rabbit referring to you as one of the culprits who attempted to shut Rabbit down. It is a bit stale to now, finally to put up the sort of resistance you should have done at the time.
.
As for the Helbig naming, something similar bot with more nuance will be offerred shortly.
.
The reasons I called you on this, at the time, you may recall, are quite telling, and while they prove nothing, they do beat a very distinct path to your door. If at this stage it was not the case, you have left it a bit late to protest.....The reasons are as follows.
.
Rabbit was engaged in in a somewhat spiteful, both sides, debate with Roger Ramjet. You were acting as his deputy, despite claiming neutrality. Let us not start denials of partisanship at this stage, please, we have been there and it is admitted by your self. Rabbit had finally managed to stump both Roger and yourself by posting the WIKIPEDIA entry about International Resolutions.
.
Gone,both gone like the wind for days. At this alte stage of the game, (then) Rabbit had also posted on five more threads on ITT.
.
On three of these Rbbit was more rude to a few others, with not quite as much justification, though some. One of these people was WTH as a matter of fact. Another thread which had seen Rabbit was The Unnatural Disaster thread, where you had actually posted at that time also. On this thread Rabbit was loving and kind and had not actually abused anyone. The exception to the other threads was only that Rabbit mentioned the Radioactive Wounds of War thread and DU as an iddue.
.
You were what's more, also on another of the threads, but no DU mentioned there..
.
When the ban on Rabbit came it saw my posts removed from the Radioactive Wounds of War thread, and the Unnatural Disaster thread, simultaneously. The site moderators pull people based on more than one complaint, by the way, Roger could not have done it alone.
.
Then, almost immediately you and Roger both jumped back onto the Radioactive Wounds of War thread and pretended I had never existed, and so far pinned you both to the wall on the DU issue.
.
Lo and Behold, the Ghost of Rabbit appeared spake unto you again. Both you and Roger proceeded to claim Rabbit had been banned and made direct claims that I had threatened and been excessively abusive. Interestingly at that point while others were writing and fighting for Rabbit's rights, you two were Shilling flat out on the DU thread and slandering Rabbit.
.
Rabbit's posts were quickly returned on the Unnatural Disasters thread, and eventually on the DU thread. By this time you and Ramjet had been bottled up a couple more times and the history of the DU thread stands as testimony to the rest.
.
The point to remember is that after having been subjected to scrutiny Rabbit was exonerated. Not Guilty Rabbit.
.
If you can give a logical explanation which explains the above facts, yet somehow excludes your involvment in dirty tricks, let's hear it.
.
This is the gross evidence used but there are a number of more circumstantial points which helped things to fall into place.
.
ITT are generally quite reticent and have not contacted me except to acknowledge details of their policy.
.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-04 17:44:49

No bull, Bun.
What is your proof, exactly? I believe it's fine to speculate and hypothecize, but to so confidently proclaim things about someone with no real proof, like I'm related to Roger, or I complained to ITT is unfair.
If ITT mistakenly told you I contacted them, then I finally do have a reason to contact them for the first time.Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-04 10:00:04

Rabbit is not seeing any significant evidence that the official story is true on the important points and there are more questions than answers, usually because the Gov't is hiding things.
.
.
Rabbit feels there is a possibility it was shot down, yes, there is some things out there and they are speculative only, but like the above , they are speculated via dealing with facts and trying to make a logical inference,
.
It is interesting you should ask "why would they not want flt. 93 to complete its mission and take out the capitol building" because Rabbit tends to a theory which means the White house was indeed the target, and there is significant circumstantial evidence to suggest that the stage was set for Marshall Law, and that the White House was expected to go up, boom..
.
Do you want to go there?
.
As this theory goes a certain General may have shot it down, against orders. Now it is a while but Rabbit remembers he has either archived it or will find it any way something about the authority to shoot down such planes in these situations as having been available to Generals on up until a month before 911, when it was changed to only be Rumsfeld, or something similar. Any query of this will be answered, it is posted thus to encourage any other to come forward and save Rabbit the work.(his paws do indeed hurt, thankyou for caring Natalie)
.
.
This is in itself the crux of the whole matter we are discussing, is it not.
.
It is the "Larger Issue".
.
Correct a simple Rabbit if he is missing something, but this debate began because we disgreed about the government itself as having been either responsible directly or via indirectly for 911, and Rabbit will add the contention that this of itself absolutely cancels all other acts by the government since as having been lawful or well advised.
.
.
As for the WTC demolitions they happened and Rabbit intends to prove it, it can be done. Rabbit is among other things a reasonable machine engineer, E*plo**sives/Pyrotechnician and welder. The combination gives a very different point of view to the average joe, but that makes it easy to prove a very simple analysis..
You are gonna love it thinks Rabbit. You will see the light and love Rabbit forever as having been the one who finally showed you the key to the truth about all the sad things that cannot be ignored anymore.
.
,.As for the last post,....... BULL.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-04 04:11:14

Hey, I thought you went to dinner!
Silly Rabbit
I didn't mean to imply anything about whatever relationship you have with ITT. It just seemed you had some problems with them that were more philosophically based than technical. Wrong word, perhaps.
For the record, I have never corresponded with ITT in any way, other than publicly via the comment board.
If someone complained about you, it wasn't me. Honestly!
G'day, G'nite, or whatever.Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-04 03:58:50

My goodness you're a busy bunny, your paws must be sore. I haven't had time to analyze closely all you presented recently.....getting late here. This is what I wrote before I saw your latest two posts (ending 5:12 AM):
I wouldn't necessarily disagree that there might be some discrepencies in the time line. How could there not be? As to the larger issue, I don't see any significant evidence that the passengers didn't stage a revolt. There's several separate accounts (phone calls, recordings) that all point to that conclusion. There were many bitter Bush haters on the 9/11 commission. I don't think any of them disagreed that a revolt was staged.
What are you trying to imply, exactly? It was shot down? If the Bush administration (or whoever) had gone to all the trouble to demolish the WTC with explosives, and send a missile into the Pentagon, why would they not want flt. 93 to complete its mission and take out the capitol building? That would REALLY set the stage for invadin' folks.
Hmmm.....I wonder if Bill Moyers thinks a missile hit the pentagon.Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-04 03:44:35

Once more on the ITT site, please do not infer that Rabbit has any "Philosophical" issue with ITT. All my postings show a pattern of increasing admiration and support for the site. They exonerated Rabbit when you and the Colonel ganged up and falsely accused Rabbit after all.
.Let us not be revisionists, thread history is the easiest to link to and Rabbit can HTML, is just too lazy, as it happens.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-04 03:21:14

Back in a couple of hours, Nat, Rabbit, has to catch up on a couple of things, close factory and home to dinner, but will look in later and hope you are being a nice girl and giving the Rabbit's posts attention, long but VERY well documented, and precisely argued, "I THINK".
.
.
Rabbit is not closed minded Nat but nor is he a fool and you know this. If Rabbit is wrong about you in any way, it is your fault, you could have been a lot more honest at certain times...
.
You threw the truce before, Would you accept the original terms now?
.
To be able to be petted by a Bunny in between disagreeing? It is actually a chivalrous Rabbit and hates hurting a lady, even an Evil one.
.
Sadly notPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-04 03:12:46

Natalie, .
Rabbit respectfully points out that he does not actually question the release or source to be honest, merely the fact that it cannot actually be navigated away from in any way or shown who it belongs to..
.
The fact is evident from the following postings that Rabbit does not question any of the facts you have thus established.
.
There may be a voice recording and certain people are claiming certain things, but now please give the rest of my reply attention.
.
Meanwhile Rabbit shall try and look at the first one again. Frankly it is of no consequence to Rabbit, the security of his computer with nothing to hide anyway. But note the link worked it just went to a nasty Government thing. Exactly the sort of Shill trick a suspicious rabbit would expect.
.
The site is fine Rabbit likes it. They are fair and they are brave. Basic is good. Keep it Forrest Gump. Coming from a Technician.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-04 03:06:10

In light of the above response, Rabbit feels justified in ignoring the last [tiny url] Natalie.
.
Do let Rabbit know if it is important though, won't you.
.
Or prove how there is anything wrong with the reasoning regarding the events you raised, factually or otherwise, please.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-04 02:49:47

Rabbit,
I've also got a problem with In These Times, though it's more technical than philosophical. It seems that links get mangled in one form or another, especially or maybe only if they take up more than one line in the entry box. This problem, and their insistence on closing spaces between paragraphs is extremely annoying. It use to be, long ago, that links were automatically made clickable on this comment board. I know there is a way to do it by using HTML, but I don't know how. If I really was Natalie from CTG, I probably would.
The first link needs to be repaired....it should simply end in peterson.pdf, not peterson.p pdf
Of course the ALPA statement is connected to a source. The source is ALPA, as per the address. It's a statement by the pilot's union that they don't think it's wise to set a precedent in releasing such recordings....they want to protect their pilot's privacy and the purity of the evidence therein. It's not the opinion of any individual, it's the collective opinion of the organization, comparable to an editorial from the New York Times endorsing John Kerry for President. It's presented here by me as evidence that such recordings did indeed exist, and were played for family members. Subsequent links (and actually the first link) explore the content of the recordings.
Would you expect ALPA to print the content of the recordings in this statement when they object to any release of the recordings in the first place?Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-04 02:43:59

OK this is the last, but it is some of the best.
.
And in a documentary film called Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-04 02:43:41

Here are the reasons Lyz Glick's story is consciously or otherise not consistent with the "reported" facts.
.....
The New York state police patched into the phone call after Lyz GlicksPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-04 02:42:08

What is the time at this moment of the conversation? I believe itPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-04 02:37:39

This is some more, I think it is interesting and like timelines needs to be considered in order.....................
"Another issue that the Commission does not raise is why no family member of the victims that were finally allowed to listen to the cockpit recording in April 2002 heard any indication that the hijackers decided to crash the plane. Neither any article nor Jere LongmanPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-04 02:36:38

Now the interesting thing about we are doing here is establishing facts and seeing where they take us. The following is an analysis of some of the facts being raised by the lovely Natalie.
.
."At 9:57, the passengers assault began. [Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-04 02:35:08

The wholly emotional appeals made by Natalie based on the supposed quotes from people involved in an action which may or may not have occurred wholly fatuous. What do they tell us? Nothing that helps and nothing which matters until we have established the words actually were said and that they are of any consequence in any case.
.
The reference of Natalie's from which the fatuous quotes come, is actually not doing more than talk about LYz Glick's Book deal.
.
The interesting stuff comes when one begins to ask the ineviatble questions who is Lyz Glick and what exactly does her experience rate a mention. Then we run into the just as inevitable, in the case of 911, dicrepancies.
Some cutting and pasting here, but the source should be looked at the whole page is not long and raises some serious questions, just a start, on the alleged fight in the cabin.
.
It is important that it is pointed out at this stage, that whether or not the planes were hijacked by any of the remaining 12 possible candidates is of no consequence in determining the involvement or otherwise of the US Gov't in the attacks. In fact the case for their involvement "Very Much" includes many of the alleged Hijackers.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-04 02:26:24

The Alpa source is a completely unverifiable statement. We cannot see who actually wrote it, nothing. We cannot verify that page in any way Nat, it is not connnected to any source, do you understand. It is a bland statement which is probably true in itself but "proves" nothing,
.
Beyond that all it says is that the Voice recorder was played for families of victims "April 18 in Princeton, N.J., despite ALPAPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-04 01:36:13

The SHILL seems to have posted a link which sneakily makes you give it your Supervisor Password, be warned EVERYBODY.
Natalie's first link makes Rabbit's Content Advisor window come up and ask for Supervisor Password. Weird because all settings are highest for Rabbit's.
The interesting thing Rabbit mentions is that there has been constant and regular hacking attacks on this computer and various attempts to get Rabbit's passwords for this and other things.
.
Maybe Rabbit is giving the Shill too much credit, but then guess what happens, a Government page comes up for a moment only then shuts down and says nothing happened, that page was not here. Go away, nothing to see here folks...OK you know what I mean. ..
.
By all means check the first link anybody and tell us what you get, maybe my computer is weird. Thats the first link Nat, Good one, Babe.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-04 01:14:59

Rabbit is seeing if you have got anything, by checking as always does, and will return. In the interests of not wasting space, as far as the Barbara Olson possibly being arrested, I cannot find anything which gives enough credence to it to be worth discussing at this point. This does not say Rabbit rules it out because it is not altogether unnexpected, the best that can be said about it was said here:
.
."what a coincidence, isn't it?
that the sudden appearance of Barbara Olson, on the non-existent Polish-Austrian border,
happens at the same time that British troops disguised as terrorists are seized, then freed in
a gigantic debacle in Basra, Iraq?
link to www.globalresearch.ca
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/basraSAS.html
let's forget about the fact that the British spy fiasco PROVES that agents provocateurs have
been blowing up "suicide bombs" in Iraq!!!!!
British and US complicity in fake terrorism is proven!!!!!
not to mention that the Pentagon SHUT DOWN questioning about Able Danger!!!!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169991,00.html
so we have CLEAR KNOWLEDGE and complicity in PREVENTING the US Intelligence officers from
arresting Mohammad Atta!!!!
HOW LONG HAS THE STENCH OF TREASON BEEN SPUMING FROM EVERY ACTION OF BUSH-CHENEY???
And here is this "Tom Flocco" character talking about this ridiculous Olson crap. He is a
charlatan and should be horse-whipped."
It will escape the notice of some how this post, including both Rabbit's and the quoted show how Liberallly minded people are so much more open minded, able to consider new ideas and examine them critically.
.
Frankly Nat Rabbit expects your post will be a collection of unsourced news stories and blogs but we shall see. Too bad you don't have the decency to do the same for others. See what they are saying and check the sources with an open mind.
.
.To any who find Rabbit is being strangely agrressive to this sweet innocent "newcomer", this "All American open minded girl, you are asked to bear in mind that Natalie is known to Rabbit, in fact he invited her here, to help prop up this pathetic faith based Troll, Jay..........
.......For to add a bit of sport to what was becoming a dismally predictable Troll bashing.........
.
Back when I know what I'm talking about re Nat's refresshingly logical and co-herant post. (Not looking at anyone, Jay)Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-04 00:54:22

Rabbit asked:
"How do you know that Natalie?."
"Of course the exact details of the battle for United 93 may never be fully known. What we do know is that those aboard the plane mounted a heroic effort to fight back and thwart the hijackers. Information pieced together from phone conversations, the cockpit voice recorder, and radio transmissions from Flight 93 reveal that the passengers and crew had devised a plan to revolt against the hijackers and began that revolt shortly before 10:00 a.m."
"Based on information passengers and crew provided to friends and family, it is believed that at least two people had been stabbed and lay either dead or injured on the cabin floor. Many who have listened to the cockpit voice recorder, including myself, also surmise that a female flight attendant, who may have been held hostage in the cockpit, fought back against the hijackers and was subsequently murdered. As the plane raced towards Washington, the passengers and crew raced towards the cockpit and began their courageous battle. The cockpit voice recorder contains heart-wrenching sounds of their efforts to break through the cockpit door. Voices of passengers and crew, while muffled and difficult to identify, could be discerned, as could the sounds of breaking glasses and plates. In my mind, as I listened to the cockpit voice recorder, I could see those brave individuals using the food service cart as a battering ram, trying with all their might to break through the door. At least one passenger was a pilot, another had training as an air traffic controller. Had the cockpit been retaken, it is entirely possible that these passengers could have brought Flight 93 to safety."
http://www.house.gov/transportation/pbed/07-26-05/peterson.pdf
The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) is the largest airline pilot union in the world and represents 64,000 pilots who fly for 41 U.S. and Canadian airlines. Founded in 1931, the Association is chartered by the AFL-CIO and the Canadian Labour Congress. Known internationally as US-ALPA, it is a member of the International Federation of Air Line Pilot Associations.Posted by Natalie on 2005-10-03 23:58:18

Natalie has sp[outed an opinion in her first post which has so far recieved considerable treatment in earlier posts on this thread. On behalf of the other participants on this thread, Rabbit requests that Natalie show the respect of finding out what she is breaking into with such a gratutious opinion at this stage.
Then Natalie said:
.
"An even more grievous situation was avoided thanks to the bravery and initiative of a few ordinary Americans who attempted to take control back from the murders intending to crash their plane into the Capitol building."
.
.
How do you know that Natalie?.
.
Give us some sources which show us why you believe that, or it too will be ascribed to being nothing but an unfounded opinion.
.
.
.....Anybody heard more about the possibility Barbara Olsen was arrested on a German border recently?..
.
Rabbit shall look into it too.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-03 20:36:19

Do you actually think Natalie, or Jay are going to "Learn" anything here David? Please, spare the Rabbit. The attacks should of course be kept controlled, and used to goad the Troll or Shill into doing what is required of it, rather than for mere personal gratification.
.
.Never respond in anger only. Count ten, Rabbit does. A carefully crafted goading which forces a Troll to confront an issue it is avoiding, is not the same as calling it an "Assgrabber" or an "Asshole" just because it is stupid and annoying.
.
The topic of this thread is "Reckoning with the God Squad"
........."Fundamentalist bullies cannot be appeased. they must be confronted.".....
.
.This is something thjat has remained the core of Rabbit's contention on this thread.
.
.If these people here are not Fundamentalists? What then are they? OK one is a Professional SHILL and the other is an IDIOT, but they are feeding the Fundamentalist cause, both sides of Fundamentalists as it happens.
.
.Rabbit is not here to Appease" fundamentalists, he is here to CONFRONT them.
.
.
Debate like decent people, or be treated like the lying sacks you then show yourselves to be.
.
.
.........................................^^........................Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-03 19:50:20

continued from previous at 9:36 PM ...
Your own position may be right and theirs may be wrong but always remember they may have something to teach you.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-03 19:49:41

Whoops.....Rabbit mistake...Last post SINGLE should read SIMPLE>
.
.
Nice to see WTH here, do as asked WTH. Read the whole thread and be sure you know what is going on here. Rabbit does not want WTH to get caught in the cross-fire. Rabbit points out to WTH that Natalie is definately a SHILL and is the reason Rabbit first used WTH as a human sheild (sort of) when they SHILL Nat and her partner were trying to play dirty.
.
WTH also got caught in the cross-fire another time by supporting someone without realising what actually that person was all about.
.
.Make sure you at least apply the logic and honesty that Rabbit knows you alone of the Conservatives on this site have.
.
That begins with checking sources given. All the sources Rabbit have given were merely via one news site, but they all link directly to their sources, so it is an ignoramus response to claim they are from any "unreliable source" without first investigating them. Now the fact is the media can be trusted to present cerrtian facts, but the details may need to be researched further. The fact of some mistakes does not vcancel out the whole report, that is obvious.
.
However if someone presents something as a FACT and provides a source, you are expected to verify and investigate that source before calling it unreliable and or false. You can see nothing from a link, or a quick glance at the Cover Page.
.,
If having once checked that source you are not satified it illustrates the point for which it was given, you may query this. The other party may then offer an alternative source, or something else may eventuate. At least in this way a debate can prgress.
.
.Rabbit has not had any of his sources properly queried and thus has not had need to offer more, but should anyone wish to make an actual obsservation of any source. Rabbit will certainly provide more and go to more trouble to ensure you cannot query them so easily a second time..
.
Unless you can do this, you will always be seen as deliberately disseminating and dishonest.
.
.See how the Natalie SHILL did just as Rabbit said she would, she loves jumping into holes the Rabbit digs for her.
.
.She is a very funny Shill but a dark a gruesome Blood Sucker as we know. Troll and Shill combined, this should be a good game.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-03 19:39:19

Rabbit, with equally great respect.
Sometimes the lack of respect and courtesy becomes the focus and distracts from the message.
Sometimes the people who need to hear the message most are made to turn away by disdain for their unbelief.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-03 19:36:43

David, withy respect, Rabbit and others on this site always extend respect and courtesy to others. We simply have the same dislike of Liars and people who clearly eaxist for no other reason than to push a line. If they cannot engage in honest debate, answer direct questions with direct answers. If they discard sources out of hand and provide little if anything to back up their own often illogical opinions. You know as well as anybody that some abuse, and references to lying are not unreasonable. The ITT moderators have been required to look at a number of threads in the course of Rabbit's time here. Rabbit as well as others have been the target of false accusations against Rabbit and others.
.
.The investigations exonerated Rabbit and others in their turns. They were checked thoroughly, the history of Unnatural Disaster and Racdiologicval Wounds of WAR show what happened.
.
Now under the circumstances, I think a benchmark has been set. Thanks agains Natalie...
.
The fact is that this site is an uncommonly reasonable and polite forum, by Internet standards. Check out WM if you want to see a bit of abuse and language. Still a good forum though..
.
The trolls and Shills make a point of trying to annoy people to the point they get banned, if as it seems they are being backed into a corner by such people. they then combine their numbers and make a complaint about their tormentor.
.
yet despite the very nice people who live here, the site is infested with at least a couple of SHILLS, who have been proven to be SHILLS, (Natalie is one) and two more TROLLS who may or may not be more than mere trolls.
.
.Now Rabbit shall ask the Natalie, to address the points already made, which make what you "think" sound utterly ridiculous..
.
.If any SHILL or TROLL asks the RABBIT anything the Rabbit always answer directly.
.
.Neither the SHILL nor the TROLL have ever answered a single direct question from Rabbit with a single direct answer.
.
.That is why anybody is entitled to be rude towards you.
.
.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-03 19:19:54

I would like to remind everyone of the admonition of our In These Times hosts as it regards posting comments.
Please be respectful in your comments ...
Respectful : Showing or marked by proper respect.
Respect : To feel or show deferential regard for.
Deferential : Marked by or exhibiting deference.
Deference : Courteous respect.
Please be polite.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-03 16:37:11

Jay
No apologies necessary. My fault.
My point is : The questions are complex and raise more questions with complex answers if the answers are to be had at all. Sometimes the questions just go round and round.
Sometimes the answers are unavailable but that doesn't mean we shouldn't ask the questions.
We build up these theories about what happened. Some are simple. Some are complex.
Remember Occam's Razor " Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler. "
What if the simpler theory is wrong?
Being simpler does not make it right.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-03 16:24:28

David,
I don't know. Is it relevant?
I thought the issue was that the passport shouldn't have even survived. My apologies for not understanding.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-03 15:48:53

Jay writes : " Did the passport ride the Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-03 15:41:16

whathteheck writes : " I guess things are Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-03 15:21:27

I've heard a lot of talk at this website about the "facts" which people know from their various pet sources.
Here is an example of why I doubt anyone's ability to "know" anything form a media source.
The following is from a New York Times, an article today titled... "G.M. and a U.S. Agency See Pensions in Different Lights"
By its own calculations, GM claims that its pension plans are solvent, while according to the government's calculations, it has a $31 billion deficit.
Both happen to be true --
because the methods for coming up with the calculations are different. The government bases its numbers on what GM would have to pay an insurance company to take over its promises, i.e., the so-called termination calculation. GM's numbers are calculated as if it were still a going concern. In that way, GM can continue to make assumptions about the future, such as the rates of return on its pension investments, and how fast its costs will rise -- whereas if its pension plans were terminated, it would have to deal with the stark reality of how things stand today.
I guess things are "knowable" + or - $31billion.Posted by whattheheck on 2005-10-03 14:25:55

Natalie,
Thank you.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-03 10:03:44

Wish I had more time to read and engage.... but I must away again.Posted by whit on 2005-10-03 09:58:32

Natalie,
Good that you prefenced your statement with "I think"... at least that qualifies it as an opinion or preferred belief.
What we are really hoping to do here is to examine all of the "evidence" and resources that can be legitimately documented. The ongoing consideration here is that there is a good bit of apparently valid info out there suggests that the "official", widely propagated and accepted explanation of what occurred (what you seemingly think)on 9-11 (and perhaps before and after) may be bogus to some significant degree.Posted by whit on 2005-10-03 09:53:24

I think it' far, far more likely that the events of 9/11 were caused by a group of brainwashed, hate-filled Islamic murderers almost simultaneously commandeering four ordinary U.S. airliners with full fuel tanks and sucessfully crashing them into three of their four intended targets.
An even more grieveous situation was avoided thanks to the bravery and initiative of a few ordinary Americans who attempted to take control back from the murders intending to crash their plane into the Capitol building.
There are many sources of information that address the let us just say "alternative theories" about 9/11. Here is one:
http://tinyurl.com/57ofqPosted by Natalie on 2005-10-03 09:25:05

Dool...Dewel....Dual..?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-03 05:06:46

Nobody is going to want to go selling Oil for such a currency, that's for sure.....Are you self sufficient?
.
.Well maybe you are just going to have to go a plundering since fairness is not your way, but don't come round telling us you are not a pirate..
.
How easy would it have been to have shared a bit and accepted a bit more reasonable share of the pie?.
.You'll never understand, and that is too bad, because it is not hard for me to understand you. But pity even can reach it's limits and as a country, the USA no longer deserves pity.
The world has serious problems, which it has collectively brought upon itself, it is trying to come to terms with an imminent global disaster and far from helping thge USA is the major single contributing factor and is stubbornly in denial about it all..
.As if this was not enough, the same country has decided to take upon itself the role of "Ultimate Wolrd Sherriff" and have proceeded to commit a long list of atrocities in the process of thoroughly cocking up an illegal inavasion and destabilising an entire region.
.
.
Thing thing is, yes the world has problems at the moment. We would like to be getting on with sorting out these problems but it is hard.
It is hard because a very BIG and VERY STUPID BULLY is running about playing a Giant Game of Cowboys and Indians. Almost Randomly nominating one or another unwitting nation as the new Indian, and the game runs on again.
.
Well drongo the game is real and the adults have had enough, since you cannot sit down, shut up, and at least let us get on with the business of running OUR WORLD, you may have to be caught by the ear and given a damned good spanking, under the circumstances you should be glad we decline to take up your offer of a NUCLEAR DULE. It is unlikely given the present performance and state of the US military that it would be as "Slam Dunk" as some of you might suspect..
...................... Rabbit could be quite rude at this point but shall not.
.
.
"Lies never hurt anyone but the teller. Truth is the only thing which can hurt another"
.
.......................................by RabbitPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-03 05:04:51

To put it in simple Troll language.
.
.
You have what the world most fears, the world owns what you most fear.......If you convince enough of the world that you are berserk and are likely to bring our worst fears into reality................guess what.......You are even more likely to see your worst fears materialise...........
.
.Venezuala is no Bank Robber either Troll, the Bank is theirs and they are taking it back off the Bank Robbers. Iran is going to lead the Middle East in taking back it's Bank and the sad part is that the real culprits, Bush and co, are going to be well covered, they can still sell their oil for EURO's too.
.
..
...
..
.
Who gets the point of that? The American Oil companies, all those multinationals who have bled all of the real assets the Gold and all out of the USA, they will just cruise fairly well into the Euro based market.
.
So who loses? You do, my poor American friends, you do. With what will you buy Euro's? The Dollar by then will be about like a Deutchmark in 1933.
.
What will you buy with a currency which is worthless outside your own borders..
.
What have you but a largely service based industry anymore?.Lots of generalisations, but no less valid for that.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-03 04:46:57

What if the USA was looking a bit shaky like now, and what if everybody decided that since they could use EUROs to buy OIL, they had no need of these very unhealthy looking bonds and the US dollars are definately not looking good in the medium let alone long term.
.
Euros can be used to buy all those goods and services provided by a population of twice the USA, and about the same GDP. They are a bigger Customer for OIL than the USA which is better.
.
You are not a very clever Troll, Rabbit winders if you can add up this little bunch of FACTS....They are FACTS... Real live gotcha by the balls..FACTS. .
.
This is why the USA is now threatening Iran, and must attack, unless Iran backs away from the Euros and new burse idea. Which they won't. Rabbit thinks the whole Nuclear argument might be the smokescreen. The real war is between USA and Europe. Too bad for the people on the front line but that is why venezuala is stepping into the firing line. Rabbit admires MR Chavez. He is a bit boisterous and Latin for Rabbit's more refined attitudes, but he is quite a Bloke and I wish him and his nation the best.
.
.Long live the courageous leaders of the World Revolution.
.
Freedom from the dollar..
You have your weapons of mass destruction, the world has a way of putting the choker hold on the USA and since you are giving us no choice, it is to be expected it will be applied.
.
Everyone knows the resultant economic collapse is going to make a mess for everybody, but in DIRECT CONTRAST to the USA all other Nations surveyed about whether they would rather survive a Nuclear War or Economic Collapse, said they would rather survive an economic collapse.
.
That is the most incredible statistic Rabbit has seen for a while. Not that the USA would be the only exception to anything, but that anyone would prefer Nuclear War.
.
.The tricky bit comes from the fact that the same country owns most of the Nuclear weaponsPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-03 04:36:17

Noticed anybody the Chavez just dumped his US Reserves. Sold up and moved the lot to Europe.
The bank that is going to look like it was robbed very shortly is actually coming in the form of all these billions of American dollars that nobody suddenly feels very good about hanging onto. That is all Iraq did wrong, they were the first who were ironically given little choice but to sell their oil for Euros, or be completely at the mercy of the US.
.
Iran saw this and so did Venezuala, obviously everyone did. The Europeans were pushing for it and why not? Many other nations, oil producing nations are on the brink too. Iraq was punishd for it's "Attack" on the US. Iran is promising a new Oil burse next year, in EURO's.....OH..OH. .
.
The FACT is you Horrible little Troll that you are the Bank Robbers, and a bloody nasty bunch you are too..
Up until this time the USA has by defacto owned all the worlds oil, since it was only traded in US dollars. This gave them an enormous Economic advantage, everyone was forced to keep huge Cash reserves of US dollars for their energy needs. A ready source of Instant loans, for the USA who could afford to start pumping an infinite supply of DOLLARS into the world, know that everybody would have to keep them in good supply kept them out of circulation. the USA could "Recycle the petro-dollar" to regulate their economy. End a depression for example, it was done.
.
This involved borrowing back some of this money and issuing gov't bonds in return.
.
........Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-03 04:35:46

Some of the Trolls earlier words Rabbit forgot to feed it.
"Bull. Most of the Iranian people are admirers of American Democracy."
---
No actually Troll, the Iranians were admirers of American democracy, like much of the world, up until about five years ago. Ask the Iranians, Rabbit knows a few are on the net shall we ask them?
---
"Bull. Just because a man who would rob a bank believes he needs a gun, is no reason why we are obligated to provide him with one"
---
You are not being to asked to give any guns to Bank robbers you dimwitted troll. You are being asked to get out of the way and let Iran enjoy the benefits of Nuclear Power just as they are entitled to under the treaties which they have been established to be in accordance with.
.
All you Lying Dirty Little Grubs are doing is trying to bribe and threaten everybody to try and stop the Iraniansdoing what they have every right to. Isarel broke the Nuclear rules, Pakistan, and America has broken all Laws and Treaties of human rights or rules of warfare. YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY as a nation, your army is being smashed on a far shore and any experienced veterans will be useless, the DU will knock them all out of the game within a few short years. You can say what you like, it is happening now. Your economy is at the brink of destruction, total. The thing Americans most fear is upon you. Economic Armageddon.
.
The Iranians are not robbing any banks you fool.
The allegory was yours, Rabbit is sticking it back. If you wish, they are not threatening to rob any banks either.
---
Rabbit must digress next post.
.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-03 04:34:48

You don't know much about fires or explosions little TROLL.
.
You will be getting a lesson very shortly and should have had it already.
There are many problems with the official story of the alleged hijackers, way over and beyond the passport.
.
Of the 19 alleged hijackers, fully seven are alive and well, never having been in the USA at the time, and definately innocent by virtue of being alive........Does he get the connection wonders Rabbit?....Alive cannot be suicide bomber.................^^.....................
.
Now we shall look it up, but it would not surprise Rabbit if the One passport which was "allegedly" recovered by a police officer, when it landed at his feet, belongs to one of those seven. All of those seven men are still officially wanted for the deed. How wack is that? Has nobody told the FBI or whoever, that the guys are alive? The Troll has now been told, let us see what it does with the information. Of course we know, it is terrified of Rabbit and will ignore Rabbit, would somebody please ask it. We also know it has been told and shown sources which establish the living Seven. These included BBC, CNN Reuters and AP, Some of it's favorite sources, no doubt.
.
The passenger lists of the planes are conspicuously absent most of the names claimed as alleged hijackers too.
.
Don't do the Knee jerk they could have been under false ID's, because stupid shill, you are claiming you have their passports. Or at least one.
.
One passport does not expalin how nineteen names were known within a day or two, no matter how you spin it, Rabbit wonders what the TROLL would say if it was asked another question.
.
HOW DID THE FBI FIND OUT ALL THOSE NAMES AS QUICKLY AS THEY DID?
.
Maybe the passport had a list of names and the plan all writtten out?
.
Maybe they left a car somewhere with some spare box cutter blades and a group photo?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-03 03:08:22

Or, presumably, if this was a passport of one of the terrorists, it would have been with the terrorist at the moment of impact. When the fuel tanks exploded and released the flood of fuel into the building, that flood would have gushed downward. The passport would have been at least a couple floors above the most intense heat.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-03 02:19:11

Did the passport ride the "train" down with the rest of the building, or did it get blown out at some point with the thousands of reams of paper before the building got that hot?Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-03 02:16:09

Well at least that one went in. Now the rest must be re-written. Seriously this is getting strange. Obviously Rabbit must watch the Dangerous words. If any ITT people reading, could you let us know if you have some sort of filters for any combinations of words, we know the bot decides to blank some random words for fear they might be #### or ####, in their slang meanings. Weird when it lets us say FUCK, and BUM and POO.
.
Posting soon about the 911 FACTS Which Rabbit feels do the deed as far as polishing of the Theory that burning Jet fuel alone brought these buildings down.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-03 01:22:33

Normally when Passenger Jet Aircraft fly into Buildings they do not actually burst into huge fireballs. That is a fact it is supported by history. For it to happen to one plane flying into a skscraper is unheard of I think. Rabbit does not mean there will not be a big bang and fuel tanks will be ruptured upon impact, there will be plenty of sparks, electrical and kinetic to ignite fires and one would expect to see the fuel, which will have spilled out and still gushing even catching fire. The fire would quickly spread across the surface of all exposed, spilled fuel. This would have resulted in a smaller fireball, back out through the entrance hole, and then a rapidly spreading fire which would have heated enough pockets of trapped fuel gas, (For The liquid never burns, first it must vaporise, become a gas) to cause a few secondary fireballs over the first half minute or more.
.
The massive fireballs which punched out through several floors I think as well as all directions in the horizontal plane, seem to have had some substantial explosive trigger, way beyond what rupturing fuel tanks could have provided.
.
This will not make sense to anybody who knows all about explosions and crashes from watching movies........................ To those of us who make those effects for the movies, it is the most basic thing in the world. Things blow up in the movies with lots of fire and smoke. Every time a plane or Car crashes it bursts into bright orange flame with lots of smoke. This is achieved by using old fashioned Gunpowder, and gasoline. The gunpowder gives a nice flash and lots of smoke, the gasoline makes it bigger and more impressive by far, but it needs a good blast of powder, to both disperse and ignite the whole thing across as broad a front as possible. This is necessary for effect and not least because of safety. You don't as a rule want a lot of burning fuel lying around..
.
Jet Fuel is not actually very good for flashy explosions because it is too slow to ignite as it happens and gives off a very pale flame.
.
To cut this one short, it is obvious where it is going, there has been some sort of massive pyrotechnic effect involved here. Something was needed to make not one, but two planes burst into flames and smoke, instantaneously one after the other. Rabbit is not for a second saying a barrel ot two of gunpower was aboard the planes. A bomb or missile, but a fair sized one, would have dispersed and ignotiede the jet fuel in such a fashion, Rabbit could reproduce the effect no problem if he could have a plane and some of the right expl**ives. Nobody could do so just with a plane and a building. Not in a hundred tries, and not twice in a row. .
.
Anybody who wishes to argue this, is welcome to try. You will be on Rabbit's home turf so to speak. All this is being said, without sources and I shall provide these in due course, but for now, since this is Rabbit's area of some knowledge, it is all off the top of his head.
.
Rabbit has just realised that the first half of this post has gone again, it was posted but has been eaten, that is try number six for some of it. WTH IS GOING ON HERE?
.
This shall post now and see if it goes.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-03 00:29:56

Hi Whit, Rabbit just catching up, today. No problems Rabbit understood the intention of the poem as you posted. Didn't mean to be cryptic, it was one of those commentsthat can sometimes slip out without thinking. Was actually more a comment to myslef, a melancholy moment of recognition. Sorry to have burdened the thread with something so innapropriate really.
.
As for what it means, if Rabbit ever actually says it out loud to himself, I will be surprised. Nobody can live with NO regrets, Rabbit has only one and it is very old, could be fixed but the fixing would be the undoing so, moves on. Sorry Whit, who is Rabbit's respected friend, did not mean to be so moved.
.
But was...................................................^^............................................Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-02 22:16:01

Luminous Beauty writes :
"Sit down, be quiet, and listen.
YouPosted by David in Canada on 2005-10-02 18:00:03

Sweet Beauty,
Yes... Rumi is for the pleasure and reflection of all. 'Perhaps of greater value to some.
Your poem was quite good as well... a sobering reminder.Posted by whit on 2005-10-02 17:39:05

Was the fire hot enough to melt steel or not hot enough to burn up a passport?
Can't have it both ways I think. Sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory to me.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-02 17:16:44

Most commercial carpets average about 1/4 or 3/8 inch thick. Commercial undercushion, if it is there at all, as opposed to direct glue down installations which are more common for commercial applications, adds another 1/4 inch, if it is there at all. Building materials and furniture materials have fire ratings that are defined and mandated by law. In other words, they are made to not burn easily.
The large fireball explosion on impact burned up most of the fuel and was indeed an " air " explosion. The alleged " slightly burned terrorist passport " found in the wreckage " , a candidate for a planted clue if there ever was one, supports the same in a twisted bit of paradoxical evidence.
Starved for oxygen and starved for credibility.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-02 17:13:07

Not many commercial carpets are near an inch thick. A pool of burning kerosene supp[ied by atmospheric oxygen at one bar, burns at ~850 F. It takes several atmospheres to get the temp. up to even jet engine levels.
If you look at the videos you'll see much of the fuel vented away from the building in a massive fireball, heating only air. The billowing black smoke in the aftermath of the explosion indicates a reducing fire (meaning relatively starved for oxygen), hence even lower burning tempurature.
You're point is exceedingly dull.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-02 16:31:58

Correction:
truck the WTC carried not quite 100,000 litre
not
truck the WTC carried not 100,000 litrePosted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-02 15:15:55

The point is jet fuel can burn at significantly higher temperatures, sufficiently high enough to weaken the steel structure, thus not requiring more complex theories to explain.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-02 15:13:21

At full capacity, the planes that struck the WTC carried not 100,000 litres. Spread out across 4000 square meters, that thins out to a pool of jet
fuel 2.5 centimetres thick. Soaked into carpet (which would increase the surface area by at least several times, thus decreasing the thickness by an equal measure), that would be fairly thin indeed.
Also, petroleum fuels, when burning, only burn at the substrate just above the level of the liquid fuel, where the fuel and oxygen mix.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-02 15:11:38

Another slam dunk.
-
Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-02 14:12:25

History is full of examples where our leaders, religious and secular, have manipulated us. They may speak mostly truth but hide a lie in amongst the truth.
Sometimes lies are promoted (surreptitiously) as truth to later be shot down as falsehoods. This can serve many purposes.
Here is a post I made recently on the Radioactive Wounds of War thread , the analogy is there :
" I have a question : I have read (maybe even in this thread) several news articles, after a recent plane crash in Ontario, Canada, which mention that depleted uranium is used as ballast(?) in the wings of some aircraft. Does the type of plane that (alledgedly) crashed into the Pentagon have depleted uranium on board? I could run a search on it but want to see if anyone else knows and/or has considered the possible implications. I donPosted by David in Canada on 2005-10-02 13:24:28

Whit writes : " David, Do you mean using simpleness as a smokescreen? "
Yes. People want to believe that our governments have our best interests at heart. Simple answers and slogans like "two legs bad, four legs bad" (enjoy the Animal Farm reference Jay) are very reassuring and serve as distractions too. The most obvious answers often overlook other possiblities.
Jay writes in reference to my "evil men hiding/disguising the truth " conspiracy comment : " A logical argument must be that, logical. Using the above quote, you can Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-02 13:05:45

One of whit's earlier posts mentioned molten steel on ground zero as evidence of a conspiracy, or at least that the official explanation is wrong. The conclusion of this, as I have been reading on some of the web sites previously referenced, is that because steel melts at temperatures between 2300-2800 F. and jet fuel burns in the combustion chamber of a jet engine at 1500 F, that this supports a controlled demolition theory of WTC.
Also, those that advocate a controlled demolition theory point out that these pools of molten steel were so hot, that they lasted for days, weeks.
I have a problem with this logic. If controlled demolitions produced the temperature needed to melt the steel, then they must have been 100 or 1000 times more powerful than any demolitions used in any other controlled demolition. Thermal energy is not merely temperature. A one-pound demolition package will generate the same temperature as 100 pounds. But demolitions on the scale of normal controlled demolitions have never created enough energy to create and sustain pools of molten steel, and certainly not the energy required to maintain a molten state for that length of period of time.
One possible explanation for such high temperatures is still the jet fuel. Aviation Kerosene Research at Caltech's Explosion Dynamics Lab has published scientific papers on the propagation of the fireball that took down TWA 800 and they show that,
"The flame is a thin layer of intense chemical reaction in which the fuel vapor molecules and oxygen in the air combine to produce high temperature (3600 degree Fahrenheit) combustion products"
http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/EDL/projects/JetA/facts.html
Not only is 3600 F enough to soften the steel required by the official 'buckling' explanation of the WTC collapse, but is it more than enough to thoroughly melt the steel found at ground zero.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-02 09:05:31

What is the troll saying? Thou shall not quote? Thou shall not provide references? Verily the Lord Troll has spoken. Obey the Troll or He shall take all his marbles (the few he has) and go home. O pity us.
-
Technically, Occam's Razor is a method of inference, not logic. The troll, who has repeatedly and overtly displayed his incompetence in logic, who cannot comprehend a compound complex sentence, who makes nonsense analogies like dogs make doo-doo, now rejects a perfectly reasonable hypothesis because it is not by itself conclusive. The droll troll.
-
Friend Whit. Thank you for the taste of Persian wisdom. Regardless to whom you may have been directing it (water off a duck's back, I'm afraid), Rumi meant it for every one, no? It's so ironic that the Bushites think it their mission to bring civilization to Iraq and Iran. Here is one of my favorites that may have some small applicability:
-
Sit down, be quiet, and listen.
You're drunk, and we
Are at the roof's edge.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-02 07:25:59

Having not yet studied Hayek, I will comment that he does a remarkable job of expounded his viewpoint, in his own word, without extraneous references to other peoples works. A bibliography should be just that, a bibliography.
If I were to have any respect for Hayek, it would be that he is competent enough to make his own points.
As far as David's straight line and infinite curved line and using smokescreens and subterfuge - yes, but to prove a conspiracy, you need more than the assertation that,
is it not possible and probable that evil men, knowing these principles (ie. OccamPosted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-02 05:58:37

Rabbit says: WHIT you chill the RabbitPosted by ljwhit on 2005-10-02 05:02:04

WHIT you chill the Rabbit's soul, life's one great mistake.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-02 04:46:11

Be with those who help your being.
DonPosted by ljwhit on 2005-10-02 02:36:50

Above ..that is...
.
....The words from Luminous Beauty
We should stop posting just to correct a spelling error. Rabbit writes as quick as he likes but sometimes likes the mistakes better than the intended word. They are sometimes weird and sometimes interesting in themselves. Anybody knows heor..is hero..and that whe must be she. Don't they? If a troll wants to play with such small things let it, we are interested with the ideas behind words, if there are any. Not how something is spelt or how grammatically correct it is. Rabbit likes to play with words it is a hobby of his. The intention is only to communicate more effectively.......
..
.
We can both say to each other "You are a liar" but unless we are both liars, one of us is going to be hurt by that accusation and one of us is not.
.
How well you call each other liars, will not matter in the overall scheme of things, what will is who has truth on his side.
.
.So if Rabbit is a LIAR then allow him the pleasure of calling his accusers liars too it would not seem so much in the end.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-02 00:55:41

Rabbit didn't realise there were others here, just dropped down to put hi foot on the ground while in the middle of reading Luminous Beauty posting. Go and read the words whe has quoted, you monkeys, any who are not now dicussing the luminosity of those words, has not read them carefully and exalted in their magnificence. The author is a Conservative Heor or something, Rabbit forgets, will check that part later, but his words should be the biggining of all political education for any Americans or pseudo Americans like Oz and the Pommies.
....
....Rabbit Stamps his Angry foot, go and read slowly it is awesome.................^^.......................
By the way Rabbit thinks Jay is achieving one thing and he seems happy with that, counting every line a victory. He wishes to be the centre of attention and keep any real exchange of ideas from happening. Rabbit proposes the ideas be exchanged despite Jay's presence and Rabbit who actually loathed the thing from the start will endeavour to avoid engaging it in direct debate, since it shows a cowardly tendency to run away and hide behind others as much as it can. The trouble is the others keep getting so sick of the JAY, they get out of the way and give him a belt around the ear too......He's a worthless Troll. Rabbit is sorry to others for giving it prominence. The Jay is not worthy of attention, look at the rubbish it is posting......half the time saying silly insults .......Bunny Face, Stands out in memory, am sure others have their favorites too. ...................
It may be a shill, in which case it has decided to play as one without a full deck of cards so to speak. It is still useless except as a diversion. Rabbit suggests we discuss the issues it has raised for they deserve more attention. We can discuss the Troll and throw it some meat every now and then, but not let it be the centre of attention, with its Snippy Snappy and ooh I'm sorry and then snippy snappy again. Rabbit is sorry to those who want nice debate, that is the point, we can use the troll and not let the troll use us. We can all whip it's ass, it is obvious. Maybe Natalie from DU will soon come out of the radiocative cave and she will drown us in sources, if we are lucky and she can debate, although she mostly just employs more sophisticated stunts of avoidance too. But prettier than this one and more interesting anyway.
.
Rabbit spits on Jay and ignores him while getting back to preparing a meal out of those same words, he will not forget, if he can read it. Maybe he has to ask others to read down the page to where he can safely avoid seeing Rabbit's words to him they are so scary.
.
For now Rabbit is reading The Luminosity of
Nobel laureate F. A. HayekPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-02 00:32:09

..............................................................................................................^^.......................................................................Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-02 00:09:56

I'm having to go out of town for a few days, but I'll try to check in a bit if I can. It's interesting and a learning experience to see the different personalities and minds in operation. 'And certainly, the issues and the information, are, I think, very important.
Getting real and searching after truth are two of the few thing that are truly worth doing, as they have much to do with determining the quality and richness (if not the worth$$$) of the experience we have between the womb and the tomb.
Be well, All. Hang in there.Posted by ljwhit on 2005-10-01 22:26:13

David,
Do you mean using simpleness as a smokescreen? Perhaps, as in...
Duhhh? Who would've thunk it? Them thrar evil-doers did it. Jess cain't stand freedom (the straight line). Why, look, there goes one a them terrorist! Opps, he got away. Boy, the sky's gonna come down now... Whew, this is scary... and a lotta hard work... out at the ranch.Posted by ljwhit on 2005-10-01 22:07:02

.. and one more thing.
On the theme of Ghandi and Jesus.
Johnny Cash said :
" .. don't take your guns to town "Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-01 19:19:17

tooPosted by David in Canada on 2005-10-01 18:55:10

If that didn't get to metaphysical.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-01 18:53:02

Jay
Back to Occam's Razor as it relates to paranoid delusional conspiracy theories. I read the Wikipedia entry to refresh my memory (have seen it referenced many times before and understood it then too) before I commented to your orignal reference to it.
Here is some cut and paste from F. Heylighen ( whoever he is but his words work for me ) :
" Occam's Razor is a logical principle .. (that) states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the priciple of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.
Though the principle may seem rather trivial, it is essential for model building because of what is known as the "underdetermination of theories by data". For a given set of observations or data, there is always an infinite number of possible models explaining those same data. This is because a model normally represents an infinite number of possible cases, of which the observed cases are only a finite subset. The non-observed cases are inferred by postulating general rules covering both actual and potential observations.
For example, through two data points in a diagram you can always draw a straight line, and induce that all further observations will lie on that line. However, you could also draw an infinite variety of the most complicated curves passing through those same two points, and these curves would fit the empirical data just as well. Only Occam's razor would in this case guide you in choosing the "straight" (i.e. linear) relation as best candidate model. A similar reasoning can be made for n data points lying in any kind of distribution. "
Now, having said all of that ; infinite but, simple, best, possible, probable, actual, potential, etc. (sorry for generalizing).
Off the cuff, the razor cuts both ways? One man's _______ is another man's _______ .? Subjectivity.
More from F. Heylighen :
" If one starts with too complicated foundations for a theory that potentially encompasses the universe, the chances of getting any manageable model are very slim indeed. Moreover, the principle is sometimes the only remaining guideline when entering domains of such a high level of abstraction that no concrete tests or observations can decide between rival models. "
Having said that. Is it not possible and probable that evil men, knowing these principles (ie. Occam's Razor), seeking to hide and/or disguise their motives and actions, would be sure to make the path to the truth so narrow, twisted and turning, emerging and dissappearing, so as to be almost impossible to find for those who seek it??Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-01 18:51:13

Jay writes : " To all, A little not-so-preemptive strike. If you are sincere in your belief that I am ducking questions, if you are sincere that you want me to respond to your assertions, please drop the personal insults and start formulating coherent paragraphs of at least a 7th grade level. " and (not necessarily in context to former) " I hope no offense was taken by the last couple posts. None was intended. "
Ijwhit writes : " No doubt, Jay, that civil and respectful is betterPosted by David in Canada on 2005-10-01 18:11:22

And one from Jesus :
"This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." John 15:12
Just a reminder. Good advice.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-01 16:48:51

Hi ... Catching up on the various threads. Back here now again.
Did some more reading on some of the more popular threads.
I am still new to these forums and am enjoying it. Understanding and learning so much. Thank you all.
Went back to the beginjning of this thread. My first post on this thread was a quote from Ghandi. Quoted him again (x2) and Jesus too.
Here is another from Ghandi :
" The moment there is suspicion about a person's motives, everything he does becomes tainted. "
Still trying to fully understand how that relates to the interaction of opinions but I think it does. Just throwing it out there.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-01 16:33:22

quack quack
I am back.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-01 13:30:06

By the way, Jay, tower #7 was never hit by an airplane.
I recommended the books in good faith. I don't know what you mean in suggesting, I think, that somehow I want someone else to do my homework. Not at all, Jay, I've read the books. I want you to do your homework, and I'm trying to help. These books are the real deal... they are pertinent to all that you ramble about. This is no trick. I wouldn't expect that you could read them in a day. But if you can be honest and would want explore the truth, then you must consider and investigate openly other perspectives. I am no longer a young man, and I have been around a few more blocks than most in terms of diversity of experience. Your perspectives are not new to me... this is the polluted water we all swim in. I have considered all this things in a deep and sincere way. Where I have come out, my take on things, was derived in an honest, open-minded way. I think it is you who is not willing to climb out of his self-serving little box and honestly explore what is outside of your comfort zone. That doesn't mean taking a quick peek and then dismissing something as "over-the-top"... this is the way of arrogant assholes. Look at the world, Jay, at history... the path of human evolution has been led largely by those who were "over-the-top". Much of what was over-the-top" or "outside of the box" is now made quite acceptable and common because it is closer to real. These books may be "out there" in comparison to the "unexamined" dominate ideology. They may be break new territory for many... and challenge comfortable illusions. 'But they are very good attempt to examine, objectivity and with factual evidence, some of the most denied and hidden realities of our society.
In your own time... if you are not afraid of what 'the truth' might be, as opposed to your truth, I suggest you explore these books. Your reaction is predictable, but I think you could work through it a bit and at least come to realize that the elephant has more than a trunk. It's just well resource, documented information, Jay, nothing final or absolute... but a good education and conducive to a broader and more diverse perspective. A help in using your higher centers to become less enthralled to narrow-minded conditioning.Posted by ljwhit on 2005-10-01 09:53:52

I am sorry if I am hogging bandwidth here. I could have just posted a link, but I am bored with witless clucks like J. Cline. I by no means am in harmonious agreement with Hayek's views; his narrow rejection of all things socialist or his backward looking and elitist effort to establish his position somewhere between liberalism and conservatism, etc. However, he does provide a remarkably clear insight into the mindset of the likes of the trolls who frequent here.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-01 09:52:33

16. In the United States the nineteenth-century use of the term "Whig" has unfortunately obliterated the memory of the fact that in the eighteenth it stood for the principles which guided the revolution, gained independence, and shaped the Constitution. It was in Whig societies that the young James Madison and John Adams developed their political ideals (cf. E. M. Burns, James Madison [New Brunnswick, N.J.; Rutgers University Press, 1938], p. 4); it was Whig principles which, as Jefferson tells us, guided all the lawyers who constituted such a strong majority among the signers of the Declaration of Independence and among the members of the Constitutional Convention (see Writings of Thomas Jefferson ["Memorial ed." (Washington, 1905)], XVI, 156). The profession of Whig principles was carried to such a point that even Washington's soldiers were clad in the traditional "blue and buff" colors of the Whigs, which they shared with the Foxites in the British Parliament and which was preserved down to our days on the covers of the Edinburgh Review. If a socialist generation has made Whiggism its favorite target, this is all the more reason for the opponents of socialism to vindicate its name. It is today the only name which correctly desribes the beliefs of the Gladstonian liberals, of the men of the generation of Maitland, Acton, and Bryce, and the last generation for whom liberty rather than equality or democracy was the main goal.
17. Lord Acton, Lectures on Modern History (London, 1906), p. 218 (I have slightly rearranged Acton's clauses to reproduce briefly the sense of his statement).
18. Cf. S. K. Padover in his Introduction to The Complete Madison (New York, 1953), p. 10: "In modern terminology, Madison would be labeled a middle-of-the-road liberal and Jefferson a radical." This is true and important, though we must remember what E. S. Corwin ("James Madison: Layman, Publicist, and Exegete," New York University Law Review, XXVII [1952], 285) has called Madison's later "surrender to the overwhelming influence of Jefferson."
19. Cf. the British Conservative party's statement of policy, The Right Road for Britain (London, 1950), pp. 41-42, which claims, with considerable justification, that "this new conception [of the social services] was developed [by] the Coalition Government with a majority of Conservative Ministers and the full approval of the Conservative majority in the House of Commons . . . [We] set out the principle for the schemes of pensions, sickness and unemployment benefit, industrial injustices benefit and a national health scheme."
20. A Smith, W.o.N., I, 432.
21. Ibid.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-01 09:40:48

8. Cf. Lord Acton in Letters of Lord Acton to Mary Gladstone, ed. H. Paul (London, 1913), p. 73: "The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern. The law of liberty tends to abolish the reign of race over race, of faith over faith, of class over class."
9. J. R. Hicks has rightly spoken in this connection of the "caricature drawn alike by the young Disraeli, by Marx and by Goebbels" ("The Pursuit of Economic Freedom," What We Defend, ed. E. F. Jacob [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1942], p. 96). On the role of the conservatives in this connection see also my Introduction to Capitalism and the Historians (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954), pp. 19 ff.
10. Cf. J. S. Mill, On Liberty, ed. R. B. McCallum (Oxford, 1946), p. 83: "I am not aware that any community has a right to force another to be civilised."
11. J. W. Burgess, The Reconciliation of Government with Liberty (New York, 1915), p. 380.
12. Cf. Learned Hand, The Spirit of Liberty, ed. I. Dilliard (New York, 1952), p. 190: "The Spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right." See also Oliver Cromwell's often quoted statement is his Letter to the Assembly of the Church of Scotland, August 3, 1650: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." It is significant that this should be the probably best-remembered saying of the only "dictator" in British history!
13. H. Hallam, Constitutional History (1827) ("Everyman" ed.), III, 90. It is often suggested that the term "liberal" derives from the early nineteenth-century Spanish party of the liberales. I am more inclined to believe that it derives from the use of that term by Adam Smith in such passages as W.o.N., II, 41: "the liberal system of free exportation and free importation" and p. 216: "allowing every man to pursue his own interest his own way, upon the liberal plan of equality, liberty, and justice."
14. Lord Acton in Letters to Mary Gladstone, p. 44. Cf. also his judgment of Tocqueville in Lectures on the French Revolution (London, 1910), p. 357: "Tocqueville was a Liberal of the purest breed - a Liberal and nothing else, deeply suspicious of democracy and its kindred, equality, centralisation, and utilitarianism." Similarly in the Nineteenth Century, XXXIII (1892), 885. The statement by H. J. Laski occurs in "Alexis de Tocqueville and Democracy," in The Social and Political Ideas of Some Representative Thinkers of the Victorian Age, ed. F. J. C. Hearnshaw (London, 1933), p. 100, where he says that "a case of unanswerable power could, I think, be made out for the view that he [Tocqueville] and Lord Acton were the essential liberals of the nineteenth century."
15. As early as the beginning of the eighteenth century, an English observer could remark that he "scarce ever knew a foreigner settled in England, whether of Dutch, German, French, Italian, or Turkish growth, but became a Whig in a little time after his mixing with us" (quoted by G. H. Guttridge, English Whiggism and the American Revolution [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1942], p. 3).Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-01 09:40:25

Notes
The quotation at the head of the Postscript is taken from Acton, Hist. of Freedom, p. 1.
1. This has now been true for over a century, and as early as 1855 J. S. Mill could say (see my John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor [London and Chicago, 1951], p. 216) that "almost all the projects of social reformers of these days are really liberticide."
2. B. Crick, "The Strange Quest for an American Conservatism," Review of Politics, XVII (1955), 365, says rightly that "the normal American who calls himself 'A Conservative' is, in fact, a liberal." It would appear that the reluctance of these conservatives to call themselves by the more appropriate name dates only from its abuse during the New Deal era.
3. The expression is that of R. G. Collingwood, The New Leviathan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1942), p. 209.
4. Cf. the characteristic choice of this title for the programmatic book by the present British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, The Middle Way (London, 1938).
5. Cf. Lord Hugh Cecil, Conservatism ("Home University Library" [London, 1912], p. 9: "Natural Conservatism . . . is a disposition averse from change; and it springs partly from a distrust of the unknown."
6. Cf. the revealing self-description of a conservative in K. Feiling, Sketches in Nineteenth Century Biography (London, 1930), p. 174: "Taken in bulk, the Right have a horror of ideas, for is not the practical man, in Disraeli's words, 'one who practices the blunders of his predecessors'? For long tracts of their history they have indiscriminately resisted improvement, and in claiming to reverence their ancestors often reduce opinion to aged individual prejudice. Their position becomes safer, but more complex, when we add that this Right wing is incessantly overtaking the Left; that it lives by repeated inoculation of liberal ideas, and thus suffers from a never-perfected state of compromise."
7. I trust I shall be forgiven for repeating here the words in which on an earlier occasion I stated an important point: "The main merit of the individualism which [Adam Smith] and his contemporaries advocated is that it is a system under which bad men can do least harm. It is a social system which does not depend for its functioning on our finding good men for running it, or on all men becoming better than they now are, but which makes use of men in all their given variety and complexity, sometimes good and sometimes bad, sometimes intelligent and more often stupid." (Individualism and Economic Order [London and Chicago, 1948], p. 11).Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-01 09:39:12

I hope I have not misled the reader by occasionally speaking of "party" when I was thinking of groups of men defending a set of intellectual and moral principles. Party politics of any one country has not been the concern of this book. The question of how the principles I have tried to reconstruct by piecing together the broken fragments of a tradition can be translated into a program with mass appeal, the political philosopher must leave to "that insidious and crafty animal, vulgarly called a statesman or politician, whose councils are directed by the momentary fluctuations of affairs."[20] The task of the political philosopher can only be to influence public opinion, not to organize people for action. He will do so effectively only if he is not concerned with what is now politically possible but consistently defends the "general principles which are always the same."[21] In this sense I doubt whether there can be such a thing as a conservative political philosophy. Conservatism may often be a useful practical maxim, but it does not give us any guiding principles which can influence long-range developments.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-01 09:37:47

I do not know whether to revive that old name is practical politics. That to the mass of people, both in the Anglo-Saxon world and elsewhere, it is today probably a term without definite associations is perhaps more an advantage than a drawback. To those familiar with the history of ideas it is probably the only name that quite expresses what the tradition means. That, both for the genuine conservative and still more for the many socialists turned conservative, Whiggism is the name for their pet aversion shows a sound instinct on their part. It has been the name for the only set of ideals that has consistently opposed all arbitrary power.
8. It may well be asked whether the name really matters so much. In a country like the United States, which on the whole has free institutions and where, therefore, the defense of the existing is often a defense of freedom, it might not make so much difference if the defenders of freedom call themselves conservatives, although even here the association with the conservatives by disposition will often be embarrassing. Even when men approve of the same arrangements, it must be asked whether they approve of them because they exist or because they are desirable in themselves. The common resistance to the collectivist tide should not be allowed to obscure the fact that the belief in integral freedom is based on an essentially forward-looking attitude and not on any nostalgic longing for the past or a romantic admiration for what has been.
The need for a clear distinction is absolutely imperative, however, where, as is true in many parts of Europe, the conservatives have already accepted a large part of the collectivist creed - a creed that has governed policy for so long that many of its institutions have come to be accepted as a matter of course and have become a source of pride to "conservative" parties who created them.[19] Here the believer in freedom cannot but conflict with the conservative and take an essentially radical position, directed against popular prejudices, entrenched positions, and firmly established privileges. Follies and abuses are no better for having long been established principles of folly.
Though quieta non movere may at times be a wise maxim for the statesman it cannot satisfy the political philosopher. He may wish policy to proceed gingerly and not before public opinion is prepared to support it, but he cannot accept arrangements merely because current opinion sanctions them. In a world where the chief need is once more, as it was at the beginning of the nineteenth century, to free the process of spontaneous growth from the obstacles and encumbrances that human folly has erected, his hopes must rest on persuading and gaining the support of those who by disposition are "progressives," those who, though they may now be seeking change in the wrong direction, are at least willing to examine critically the existing and to change it wherever necessary.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-01 09:36:04

7. We should remember, however, that when the ideals which I have been trying to restate first began to spread through the Western world, the party which represented them had a generally recognized name. It was the ideals of the English Whigs that inspired what later came to be known as the liberal movement in the whole of Europe[15] and that provided the conceptions that the American colonists carried with them and which guided them in their struggle for independence and in the establishment of their constitution.[16] Indeed, until the character of this tradition was altered by the accretions due to the French Revolution, with its totalitarian democracy and socialist leanings, "Whig" was the name by which the party of liberty was generally known.
The name died in the country of its birth partly because for a time the principles for which it stood were no longer distinctive of a particular party, and partly because the men who bore the name did not remain true to those principles. The Whig parties of the nineteenth century, in both Britain and the United States, finally brought discredit to the name among the radicals. But it is still true that, since liberalism took the place of Whiggism only after the movement for liberty had absorbed the crude and militant rationalism of the French Revolution, and since our task must largely be to free that tradition from the overrationalistic, nationalistic, and socialistic influences which have intruded into it, Whiggism is historically the correct name for the ideas in which I believe. The more I learn about the evolution of ideas, the more I have become aware that I am simply an unrepentant Old Whig - with the stress on the "old."
To confess one's self as an Old Whig does not mean, of course, that one wants to go back to where we were at the end of the seventeenth century. It has been one of the purposes of this book to show that the doctrines then first stated continued to grow and develop until about seventy or eighty years ago, even though they were no longer the chief aim of a distinct party. We have since learned much that should enable us to restate them in a more satisfactory and effective form. But, though they require restatement in the light of our present knowledge, the basic principles are still those of the Old Whigs. True, the later history of the party that bore that name has made some historians doubt where there was a distinct body of Whig principles; but I can but agree with Lord Acton that, though some of "the patriarchs of the doctrine were the most infamous of men, the notion of a higher law above municipal codes, with which Whiggism began, is the supreme achievement of Englishmen and their bequest to the nation"[17] - and, we may add, to the world. It is the doctrine which is at the basis of the common tradition of the Anglo-Saxon countries. It is the doctrine from which Continental liberalism took what is valuable in it. It is the doctrine on which the American system of government is based. In its pure form it is represented in the United States, not by the radicalism of Jefferson, nor by the conservatism of Hamilton or even of John Adams, but by the ideas of James Madison, the "father of the Constitution."[18]Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-01 09:34:02

6. What I have said should suffice to explain why I do not regard myself as a conservative. Many people will feel, however, that the position which emerges is hardly what they used to call "liberal." I must, therefore, now face the question of whether this name is today the appropriate name for the party of liberty. I have already indicated that, though I have all my life described myself as a liberal, I have done so recently with increasing misgivings - not only because in the United States this term constantly gives rise to misunderstandings, but also because I have become more and more aware of the great gulf that exists between my position and the rationalistic Continental liberalism or even the English liberalism of the utilitarians.
If liberalism still meant what it meant to an English historian who in 1827 could speak of the revolution of 1688 as "the triumph of those principles which in the language of the present day are denominated liberal or constitutional" [13] or if one could still, with Lord Acton, speak of Burke, Macaulay, and Gladstone as the three greatest liberals, or if one could still, with Harold Laske, regard Tocqueville and Lord Acton as "the essential liberals of the nineteenth century,"[14] I should indeed be only too proud to describe myself by that name. But, much as I am tempted to call their liberalism true liberalism, I must recognize that the majority of Continental liberals stood for ideas to which these men were strongly opposed, and that they were led more by a desire to impose upon the world a preconceived rational pattern than to provide opportunity for free growth. The same is largely true of what has called itself Liberalism in England at least since the time of Lloyd George.
It is thus necessary to recognize that what I have called "liberalism" has little to do with any political movement that goes under that name today. It is also questionable whether the historical associations which that name carries today are conducive to the success of any movement. Whether in these circumstances one ought to make an effort to rescue the term from what one feels is its misuse is a question on which opinions may well differ. I myself feel more and more that to use it without long explanations causes too much confusion and that as a label it has become more of a ballast than a source of strength.
In the United States, where it has become almost impossible to use "liberal" in the sense in which I have used it, the term "libertarian" has been used instead. It may be the answer; but for my part I find it singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute. What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-01 09:32:49

Only at first foes it seem paradoxical that the anti-internationalism of conservatism is so frequently associated with imperialism. But the more a person dislikes the strange and thinks his own ways superior, the more he tends to regard it as his mission to "civilize" other[10] - not by the voluntary and unhampered intercourse which the liberal favors, but by bringing them the blessings of efficient government. It is significant that here again we frequently find the conservatives joining hands with the socialists against the liberals - not only in England, where the Webbs and their Fabians were outspoken imperialists, or in Germany, where state socialism and colonial expansionism went together and found the support of the same group of "socialists of the chair," but also in the United States, where even at the time of the first Roosevelt it could be observed: "the Jingoes and the Social Reformers have gotten together; and have formed a political party, which threatened to capture the Government and use it for their program of Caesaristic paternalism, a danger which now seems to have been averted only by the other parties having adopted their program in a somewhat milder degree and form."[11]
5. There is one respect, however, in which there is justification for saying that the liberal occupies a position midway between the socialist and the conservative: he is as far from the crude rationalism of the socialist, who wants to reconstruct all social institutions according to a pattern prescribed by his individual reason, as from the mysticism to which the conservative so frequently has to resort. What I have described as the liberal position shares with conservatism a distrust of reason to the extent that the liberal is very much aware that we do not know all the answers and that he is not sure that the answers he has are certainly the rights ones or even that we can find all the answers. He also does not disdain to seek assistance from whatever non-rational institutions or habits have proved their worth. The liberal differs from the conservative in his willingness to face this ignorance and to admit how little we know, without claiming the authority of supernatural forces of knowledge where his reason fails him. It has to be admitted that in some respects the liberal is fundamentally a skeptic[12] - but it seems to require a certain degree of diffidence to let others seek their happiness in their own fashion and to adhere consistently to that tolerance which is an essential characteristic of liberalism.
There is no reason why this need mean an absence of religious belief on the part of the liberal. Unlike the rationalism of the French Revolution, true liberalism has no quarrel with religion, and I can only deplore the militant and essentially illiberal antireligionism which animated so much of nineteenth-century Continental liberalism. That this is not essential to liberalism is clearly shown by its English ancestors, the Old Whigs, who, if anything, were much too closely allied with a particular religious belief. What distinguishes the liberal from the conservative here is that, however profound his own spiritual beliefs, he will never regard himself as entitled to impose them on others and that for him the spiritual and the temporal are different sphere which ought not to be confused.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-01 09:31:41

Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it - or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. I can have little patience with those who oppose, for instance, the theory of evolution or what are called "mechanistic" explanations of the phenomena of life because of certain moral consequences which at first seem to follow from these theories, and still less with those who regard it as irrelevant or impious to ask certain questions at all. By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position. Frequently the conclusions which rationalist presumption draws from new scientific insights do not at all follow from them. But only by actively taking part in the elaboration of the consequences of new discoveries do we learn whether or not they fit into our world picture and, if so, how. Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to be incorrect, it would hardly be moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge facts.
Connected with the conservative distrust if the new and the strange is its hostility to internationalism and its proneness to a strident nationalism. Here is another source of its weakness in the struggle of ideas. It cannot alter the fact that the ideas which are changing our civilization respect no boundaries. But refusal to acquaint one's self with new ideas merely deprives one of the power of effectively countering them when necessary. The growth of ideas is an international process, and only those who fully take part in the discussion will be able to exercise a significant influence. It is no real argument to say that an idea is un-American, or un-German, nor is a mistaken or vicious ideal better for having been conceived by one of our compatriots.
A great deal more might be said about the close connection between conservatism and nationalism, but I shall not dwell on this point because it might be felt that my personal position makes me unable to sympathize with any form of nationalism. I will merely add that it is this nationalistic bias which frequently provides the bridge from conservatism to collectivism: to think in terms of "our" industry or resource is only a short step away from demanding that these national assets be directed in the national interest. But in this respect the Continental liberalism which derives from the French Revolution is little better than conservatism. I need hardly say that nationalism of this sort is something very different from patriotism and that an aversion to nationalism is fully compatible with a deep attachment to national traditions. But the fact that I prefer and feel reverence for some of the traditions of my society need not be the cause of hostility to what is strange and different.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-01 09:30:31

That the conservative opposition to too much government control is not a matter of principle but is concerned with the particular aims of government is clearly shown in the economic sphere. Conservatives usually oppose collectivist and directivist measures in the industrial field, and here the liberals will often find allies in them. But at the same time conservatives are usually protectionists and have frequently supported socialist measures in agriculture. Indeed, though the restrictions which exist today in industry and commerce are mainly the result of socialist views, the equally important restrictions in agriculture were usually introduced by conservatives at an even earlier date. And in their efforts to discredit free enterprise many conservative leaders have vied with the socialists.[9]
4. I have already referred to the differences between conservatism and liberalism in the purely intellectual field, but I must return to them because the characteristic conservative attitude here not only is a serious weakness of conservatism but tends to harm any cause which allies itself with it. Conservatives feel instinctively that it is new ideas more than anything else that cause change. But, from its point of view rightly, conservatism fears new ideas because it has no distinctive principles of its own to oppose them; and, by its distrust of theory and its lack of imagination concerning anything except that which experience has already proved, it deprives itself of the weapons needed in the struggle of ideas. Unlike liberalism, with its fundamental belief in the long-range power of ideas, conservatism is bound by the stock of ideas inherited at a given time. And since it does not really believe in the power of argument, its last resort is generally a claim to superior wisdom, based on some self-arrogated superior quality.
The difference shows itself most clearly in the different attitudes of the two traditions to the advance of knowledge. Though the liberal certainly does not regard all change as progress, he does regard the advance of knowledge as one of the chief aims of human effort and expects from it the gradual solution of such problems and difficulties as we can hope to solve. Without preferring the new merely because it is new, the liberal is aware that it is of the essence of human achievement that it produces something new; and he is prepared to come to terms with new knowledge, whether he likes its immediate effects or not.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-01 09:29:26

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - bet he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.
Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power.[8] The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.
Admittedly, it was only when power came into the hands of the majority that further limitations of the power of government was thought unnecessary. In this sense democracy and unlimited government are connected. But it is not democracy but unlimited government that is objectionable, and I do not see why the people should not learn to limit the scope of majority rule as well as that of any other form of government. At any rate, the advantages of democracy as a method of peaceful change and of political education seem to be so great compared with those of any other system that I can have no sympathy with the antidemocratic strain of conservatism. It is not who governs but what government is entitled to do that seems to me the essential problem.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-01 09:26:52

Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.[7] Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people.
When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as "concessions" to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.
It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may also explain why it seems to be so much easier for the repentant socialist to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the liberal.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-01 09:24:59

This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles,[6] it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are co-ordinated, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously lacks. So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. Macaulay, Tocqueville, Lord Acton, and Lecky certainly considered themselves liberals, and with justice; and even Edmund Burke remained an Old Whig to the end and would have shuddered at the thought of being regarded as a Tory.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-01 09:23:06

This difference between liberalism and conservatism must not be obscured by the fact that in the United States it is still possible to defend individual liberty by defending long-established institutions. To the liberal they are valuable not mainly because they are long established or because they are American but because they correspond to the ideals which he cherishes.
3. Before I consider the main points on which the liberal attitude is sharply opposed to the conservative one, I ought to stress that there is much that the liberal might with advantage have learned from the work of some conservative thinkers. To their loving and reverential study of the value of grown institutions we owe (at least outside the field of economics) some profound insights which are real contributions to our understanding of a free society. However reactionary in politics such figures as Coleridge, Bonald, De Maistre, Justus MPosted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-01 09:19:19

Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments. But, though there is a need for a "brake on the vehicle of progress,"[3] I personally cannot be content with simply helping to apply the brake. What the liberal must ask, first of all, is not how fast or how far we should move, but where we should move. In fact, he differs much more from the collectivist radical of today than does the conservative. While the last generally holds merely a mild and moderate version of the prejudices of his time, the liberal today must more positively oppose some of the basic conceptions which most conservatives share with the socialists.
2. The picture generally given of the relative position of the three parties does more to obscure than to elucidate their true relations. They are usually represented as different positions on a line, with the socialists on the left, the conservatives on the right, and the liberals somewhere in the middle. Nothing could be more misleading. If we want a diagram, it would be more appropriate to arrange them in a triangle with the conservatives occupying one corner, with the socialists pulling toward the second and the liberals toward the third. But, as the socialists have for a long time been able to pull harder, the conservatives have tended to follow the socialist rather than the liberal direction and have adopted at appropriate intervals of time those ideas made respectable by radical propaganda. It has been regularly the conservatives who have compromised with socialism and stolen its thunder. Advocates of the Middle Way[4] with no goal of their own, conservatives have been guided by the belief that the truth must lie somewhere between the extremes - with the result that they have shifted their position every time a more extreme movement appeared on either wing.
The position which can be rightly described as conservative at any time depends, therefore, on the direction of existing tendencies. Since the development during the last decades has been generally in a socialist direction, it may seem that both conservatives and liberals have been mainly intent on retarding that movement. But the main point about liberalism is that it wants to go elsewhere, not to stand still. Though today the contrary impression may sometimes be caused by the fact that there was a time when liberalism was more widely accepted and some of its objectives closer to being achieved, it has never been a backward-looking doctrine. There has never been a time when liberal ideals were fully realized and when liberalism did not look forward to further improvement of institutions. Liberalism is not averse to evolution and change; and where spontaneous change has been smothered by government control, it wants a great deal of change of policy. So far as much of current governmental action is concerned, there is in the present world very little reason for the liberal to wish to preserve things as they are. It would seem to the liberal, indeed, that what is most urgently needed in most parts of the world is a thorough sweeping away of the obstacles to free growth.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-01 09:11:43

What an honor to make Jay Cline's boycott list.
This is AOK with me. I'm getting bored pointing out the logical errors and superficial interpretations of fact in his 'arguments'. Watching him spin and twist, distort and and deny has been amusing, but it is getting redundant.
-
For everyone's edification, I will post here a remarkable essay by a hero of the right:
-
Why I Am Not a Conservative
By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek
In The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960)
"At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities, that have prevailed by associating themselves with auxiliaries whose objects often differed from their own; and this association, which is always dangerous, has sometimes been disastrous, by giving to opponents just grounds of opposition." - Lord Acton
1. At a time when most movements that are thought to be progressive advocate further encroachments on individual liberty,[1] those who cherish freedom are likely to expend their energies in opposition. In this they find themselves much of the time on the same side as those who habitually resist change. In matters of current politics today they generally have little choice but to support the conservative parties. But, though the position I have tried to define is also often described as "conservative," it is very different from that to which this name has been traditionally attached. There is danger in the confused condition which brings the defenders of liberty and the true conservatives together in common opposition to developments which threaten their ideals equally. It is therefore important to distinguish clearly the position taken here from that which has long been known - perhaps more appropriately - as conservatism.
Conservatism proper is a legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly widespread attitude of opposition to drastic change. It has, since the French Revolution, for a century and a half played an important role in European politics. Until the rise of socialism its opposite was liberalism. There is nothing corresponding to this conflict in the history of the United States, because what in Europe was called "liberalism" was here the common tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American tradition was a liberal in the European sense.[2] This already existing confusion was made worse by the recent attempt to transplant to America the European type of conservatism, which, being alien to the American tradition, has acquired a somewhat odd character. And some time before this, American radicals and socialists began calling themselves "liberals." I will nevertheless continue for the moment to describe as liberal the position which I hold and which I believe differs as much from true conservatism as from socialism. Let me say at once, however, that I do so with increasing misgivings, and I shall later have to consider what would be the appropriate name for the party of liberty. The reason for this is not only that the term "liberal" in the United States is the cause of constant misunderstandings today, but also that in Europe the predominant type of rationalistic liberalism has long been one of the pacemakers of socialism.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-01 09:05:47

correction:
to stifle oppostition and have final say on who can run for elected office.
not,
to stifle oppostition and have final say on who can run from elected office.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-01 06:23:33

whit,
I hope no offense was taken by the last couple posts. None was intended...Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-01 06:21:31

whit,
However, I will not do other people's homework. If someone has a point to make, then make it. I believe it to be very disingenuous to make a conclusion and then substantiate it by sending all those who disagree to volumes of books or google references and other resources.
All that does is shut the debate down.
I appreciate the technical info you did provide on 9/11. I have not yet had a chance to investigate. But (no sarcasm intended here) an accurate bibliographical reference to that specific data would be appreciated.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-01 06:19:31

whit,
I do apologize for some of the earlier heavy handed sarcasm. Going with the whit-less snark was probably the most egregious. I had great difficulty with the onslaught from Rabbit. David was a splash of cold water and I have attempted to be more civil.
I believe I have been honest and forthright characterizing my opinions as opinions. But it is difficult when I get repeatedly blindsided by assignments to my beliefs that I never made (Gott mit Uns and "hanging" with the Shah are the most recent ones).Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-01 06:10:14

whit,
No, I was referring to the mullahs who, after the 1979 revolution, use secret police to stifle oppostition and have final say on who can run from elected office.
What kind of democracy do you have when one political party has that authority? You have a one party democracy.
And if I had ever expressed admiration for the Shah, then I would absolutely be a hypocrit.
Might does not make right. That is why sovereignty that was grabbed by force of arms is not necessarily legit. Therefore not sacred. The modern notion of sacred sovereignty was based on 19th century pragmatism. I won't take you out if you don't take me out.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-01 05:57:38

Remember any "New chum internet users" the fact that the source begins at PRISON PLANET which is but a News Source, bit right wing attitudes for this Hopper, but each to his or hers. The fact remains it is a site which mostly collates credible news and apart from clearly defined comment (Defined as only comment or opinion) is wholly credible as a source of news. The fact remains that whether or not you find them credible, for any NEW CHUMS, is beside the point, for Mr Jones will merely point the way and you will find the Facts reffered to as being there. Then come back and tell us you have seen the link. Tell us it is only the opinion of one expert in the field or you may go for the more sophisticated attack, true or otherwise on the witness' credentials....It has all been done, you are not the first troll to come this way....You need only follow the script, we know it as well as you.................it tells you what to say and think...............just try and show a bit of imagination, pretend you have sources and link to porn sites or something in hopes nobody will check them since you never check their sources..but try and get your game up.
.
. http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html#bombs
JAY
.
JAY, get a bit of sophistication into your arguments, don't just keep doing the snarling dog in the corner, that was Wolf's way. Then merely dropping the God references yet retaining the same faith based screeching and pretences at dignity while slutting your mind for thrills.
.
Go and do a few hours research before you come back and display your empty cupboards again.
.
.
The best place to begin is at the source above.
.
You have had a hint that Rabbit and maybe others may be using the one source for source links, maybe it would help your cause to check out our background info. You will be able to pick from any of the categories you feel we may be lagging in and CHECK our sources. You may find that at the end of it is a Porn site or something and you can ACTUALLY enjoy getting to kick someone's ass for real, ACTUALLY PROVING they are full of shit about some point they may be trying to prove..
.
.Dude I may only be a Rabbit but I can tell you that it sure as hell is a lot easier than trying to just insult people and mouth off hoping to score some points that way.
.
Since you can't actually hit anyone or shoot them, and since anything you say is recorded and can be used against one, it pays to be wise with the word.
.
.On right wing type sites, your sort of antics can score all sorts of points. But where logic and reason prevail, where open minded meets facts, you are but a little Baa Lamb with such crude tools..
Try our way, you might score a point here and there, but best of all people who are used to being nice to each other and like to, will be nice to you, even if we still think you are full of shit.
.
.Ask WTH (whom Rabbit hopes sees you here, ....look at it WTH, even though you agree with him do you want to be his friend?) Rabbit is quite pleasant to WTH him these days having once been less than nice, shall we say.., and this despite still usually thinking WTH is full of shit..
.. this is because he has engaged his brain and frankly he can make a lot better fist of the argument you wish you could.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-01 02:59:44

The strange collapse of WTC 7 has never been reported ANYWHERE in the mainstream media. If these suggestions are true then the implications are massive.
Steel Not Seen As Factor in WTC Collapse: Early tests on steel beams from the World Trade Center show they generally met or were stronger than design requirements, ruling them out as a contributing cause of the collapse of the towers, federal investigators said Wednesday.
WTC 7: First large building ever to collapse from fire alone (no debris impact)
The Firefighters' Tapes - Tapes reveal that fires were under control not raging infernos: A lot of the portions of the tapes have been classified. This portion lasts an hour and thirteen minutes, we have highlighted the interesting parts below with full transcripts.
Where's the inferno? The reason given for the collapse of the twin towers is floor trusses at the aircraft impact level failed due to an inferno generated by aircraft fuel which turned the impacted floors into an 800Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-01 02:58:35

By the Way JAY Blogs are not generally considered sources!
.
What was the poetry you were "not getting" around here? Rabbit missed the poems. Nobody else mentioned poems thinks Rabbit. You seem to see a lot of things others don't.
Still Rabbit tries to post the Bunny Bang Theory, but a third computer crash, seems to happen when these words are in the post.
.
................D*MOLITI*N................EX*LOS*VE...................WTC
..
Weirding Rabbit out and frustrating too.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-01 01:21:40

No doubt, Jay, that civil and respectful is better... no doubt. But honesty and fair-play should go along with that. In all due respect, altho some little shift in attitute appears in the making, I have to say, not as a put down but just what's so for me, that I haven't really felt that you have operated with a very high level of honesty, integrity, and open-mindedness. It has really frustrated me. I have mixed feelings about it looking like everyone is ganging up on you, but you have managed to piss almost everyone off... 'And I don't think it is only about differences of perspective. Certainly there has been good reason for you to be pissed off and offended, too. Maybe we should all go back to the drawing board. This thing has run very far afield. If you interested in checking out some info not in your little box about 9-11, you might investigate the books I suggested... if you have the time for that kind of reading. It's not blog stuff... a little more serious and thorough and comprehensively organized.
I've gotta get some sleep.Posted by ljwhit on 2005-10-01 01:10:21

Whit you need not apologise to anyone, you are cherant, reasoned and articulate. You make valid points and back them up with sources especially if challenged on anything.
....
It is not Whit who needs to apologise.
..
Just take note as much of the tactics of the Troll as anything he manages to say. Notice how much he ducks and dances and how much energy he will devote to saying absolutely nothing. Except repeating his opinions as if his mere utterance gives them the the force of universal law.
..
Rabbit is going to hit YOU with a BIGGER fact than you have ever imagined JAY and it is going to prove that at least one part of the OFFICIAL THEORY of WTC's was false....
Not that proof means anything to a man such as your self who can turn the course of rivers on command.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-01 00:56:50

My god did we see that?
..
The Troll can post a source when it means nothing but an attempt at wit?
.
..What a pathetic little hypocrite you are JAY.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-01 00:47:09

Help....Rabbit has problems. ....................second time he tried to post the info which is Rabbit's own contribution to 911 bag theory, involves pretty compelling FACT, as yet overlooked by people thinks Rabbit. ...........................This time everything went into meltdown. ....................Rabbit's admittedly 'bit' wonky computer crashed even quicker than the WTC's, free fall which is what it is about.................................
.
To those who know what Rabbit means. note that this may be a co-incidence, but don't think so.........this is not the only time Rabbit has seen a certain pattern.............
..................
..
Not sure how we will go now but Rabbit will try again to pen the words which someone does not want posted.
.
WHIT you are a very shiny mind and Rabbit is glad to make your aquaintance. It seems like JAY may be a Shill or at least a superior type of Troll, he will mostly avoid anything important Rabbit says and just call Rabbit, hurtful names like BUNNY FACE. .........OOh that is so mean, BUNNY FACE.....Poor rabbit.
.
This is why Rabbit shall address his thoughts of worth to those who can think and care to. .....It will become necessary to Wack the Moron on occassion and Rabbit shall do his duty in this regard, be sure. But the fact is he as a Troll or Shill will fear the Rabbit and will not be able to look Rabbit in the eye. To do so he would have to deal directly with the questions put to him, which he cannot, because Rabbit does not give him room to lie and maneuver. He will throw rocks desperately at Rabbit who will dodge them with ease and a happy face. all the while Rabbit will Wack the Moron, sometimes for fun, sometimes out of obligation, inevitably such a stupid one will hit its own head many times upon the Rabbit's Stick without Rabbit doing anything to help it.
...
So to Whit and Liz and david and any who can think, the next Rabbit post is mostly for you, since Jay is too scared to even acknowledge Rabbit.
..........Bewar the Shill, it bears the mark. see it's massively long rants with no substance, smoke and mirrors, making it look like a debate exists where there is none, do you not see its antics people?
..
It has occurred to Rabbit how often we all get involved in dealing with these Morons like Jay and all his other clones. How often we all end up taking over the wacking or indulging in wacking the Troll or Shill as a group and in doing so often miss sharing some of the more important stuff we could give each other. Instead of repeating the same basic FACTS which we have all long since established, and have moved on from. We never get to move on when we must keep teaching the ONE TIMES TABLES to the Willfully Ignorant like JAY, SCORP and Wolf to name a few recent ones. BTW the Vampire and Ramjet SHILLS still infest the DU thread, they have set up permanent home there it would seem.
next to come will be Bunny Bang Theory,....If the Electrons allow it.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-01 00:45:12

Jay
Wealth: 'like I said, not quite the same, but more compatible. 'And there is nothing really exact about these estimates.
Jay rants: "IRAN's democracy was hijacked by thugs!" You are referring, I suppose, to the crushing of democratic government of the popular Prime Minister, Mossadegh, in 1953 by the CIA, so that U.S. and British oil companies could regain control over the oil resources of the Iranian people (do any possible similaries occur to anyone here?).
'And what a fascist pimp we put into power to replace him. The Shah's father, the old shah, who had been displaced by democracy, was an avowed big fan of... (you guessed it perhaps) Adolf Hitler. You're hanging with the right crowd here, Jay. Such a hypocritter.
'And what do you think is happening to U.S. democracy, Jay?
Sovereignty is not sacrosanct... might makes right... we can fuck with anyone we want... how are they gonna stop us... we are the king of the world... blah, blah, blah,...Posted by ljwhit on 2005-10-01 00:42:51

To all,
A little not-so-preemptive strike.
If you are sincere in your belief that I am ducking questions, if you are sincere that you want me to respond to your assertions, please drop the personal insults and start formulating coherent paragraphs of at least a 7th grade level...
That is why I do not respond to (or even read) bunnies' comments. lb is next on my boycott list.
I can get better poetry from Uyghur poets imprisoned in Chinese jails.
Actually, that isn't fair. There is some extraordinary poetry coming from that part of the world.
You really gotta read this:
http://www.rfa.org/english/uyghur/2005/06/27/wild_pigeon/Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-01 00:35:05

whit,
While I donPosted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-01 00:22:00

whit,
Here you go again, J, with the double standardsPosted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-01 00:21:25

Did Saddam support terrorist groups? Absolutely... according to Jay.
Did the U.S. support terrorist groups? Undeniably, you bet your ass. Reseach THAT question, Jay.
Here you go again, J, with the double standards... whatever we do is justified. Remember at all the discussion of hypocrisy?
By your logic (taking away the double standard) the 9-11 attack WAS justified.
Honestly, Jay, how can the "was on terrorism" be anything but an absolute farce when the U.S. government is the biggest terrorist organization on the planet. If Bush the Torturer put a bullet in his own head, then I'd say he was making some progress.
Please consider reading the books I suggested, Jay, they are very pertinent to all of this. You need to develop a respect for and discernment for the concepts of "validity" and "reliability" in regards to the legitimacy of information. Everyone here has been trying to drive this point home to you: references... sources. Issues, too, of logic and integrity. Why pretend that this is an argument (in the positive sense of the word) and a debate, when you maintain an attitude of "Well, this is my story, and I'm sticking to it."Posted by ljwhit on 2005-10-01 00:06:15

Apologies, folks, for the huge postings. I didn't trust that Jay would check out the article if just referred to it.
I respect all of you that are participating in this, perhaps, foolishness. I keep telling myself, "Go get a life", but I have one. Yet... I have gotten engaged, maybe hooked, here... for the while anyway.
I must say that I really appreciate the thought and work that I've seen put into this deliberation. 'Some very impressive performances.
I kinda flounder around... but I'm a newbie to this kind of engagement. Sorry, if I've bummed anyone out... even you, Jay.
The human condition: We all can only operate according to the level of our development and understanding. Real evil derives, perhaps, from forsaking and denying what we do understand and realize for some baser motive or agenda... the selling out of one's soul.Posted by ljwhit on 2005-09-30 23:43:23

All,
Look. We are not going to see eye to eye on this. ThatPosted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-30 23:40:05

lb,
(international law enforcement and national sovereignty)
Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-30 23:39:29

whit,
(justification of Iraq War debate)
Was Saddam directly involved with al Qaeda in 9/11? Probably not.
Did Saddam knowingly provide the kind of financial support toward 9/11 or a 9/11-type attack on par with quasi-official Saudi resources? Probably not.
Did Saddam knowingly provide direct logistic support for 9/11 preparations like Iran? Possible but not currently known with certainty.
Did Saddam provide rear echelon support after Afghanistan like Pakistani intelligence services and certain Pakistani tribes? (sorry, trick question - we never gave him the chance)
Did Saddam support terrorist groups? Absolutely. Not just during the time frame in question (late 90s to 9/11), but since at least the early 70s. Abu Nidal, the Osama of the last 30 years of the 20th century, was well acquainted with Saddam. Nidal served as Yasser ArafatPosted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-30 23:38:51

whit,
(distribution of wealth debate)
I quoted those stats here:
Posted by Jay Cline on September 29, 2005 at 12:19 AM
(page two of the postings)
Actually, the top 1% of the population has 1/3 the wealth. And the top 20% has 80%.
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so111/stratification/income&wealth.htm
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=2050
As far as Churchill and el Duce, you really need to reread your history. As you read ChurchillPosted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-30 23:38:17

David,
(9/11 conspiracy)
The only two things I have been avoiding is jumping to conclusions and staying out of fur fights. I have been successful with the first, not so good at the second.
We must be looking at different ducks.
(from Wikipedia.org)
"Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. Put into everyday language, it says
Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler.
For example, a charred tree could be caused by a lightning strike or by someone who used a machine to burn the upper branches of a tree and then replanted the grass leading up to the tree to hide the machine's tracks. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions."
What is the probability of being hit by lightning? If you get hit by lightning, do you assume a conspiracy by the electric company using top secret lightning machines because you sent your last electric bill three days late last month?
Assuming a conspiracy when a low probability event occurs, such as a spike in put options, requires greater assumptions than acknowledging that even low probability events, such as rolling box cars, or getting struck by lightning when you didnPosted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-30 23:36:56

Nein, whit. I'm no more a religious nutcase than I am a conspiracy wingnut.
Sorry to disappoint anyone's preconceived stereotypes.
(I have not yet had a chance to read the articles on fascism. I have been busy with the following. But I will get to them now.)Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-30 23:35:04

"Gott Mit Uns" Aye, Jay?Posted by ljwhit on 2005-09-30 23:17:11

The Real Threat of Fascism #5
Having said that fascism is the result of a flawed notion of freedom, I respectfully suggest that we must reexamine what we mean when we throw around the word Posted by ljwhit on 2005-09-30 23:11:40

The Real Threat of Fascism #4
At present, monopolies are regulated on purely economic grounds to ensure the efficient allocation of goods. If we are to protect ourselves from the growing political influence of big business, then our antitrust laws must be reconceived in a way which recognizes the political danger of monopolistic conditions. Antitrust laws do not just protect the marketplace, they protect democracy.
Our collective forgetfulness about the economic nature of fascism is also dangerous at a more philosophical level. As contradictory as it may seem, fascist dictatorship was made possible because of the flawed notion of freedom which held sway during the era of laissez-faire capitalism in the early twentieth century. It was the liberals of that era that clamored for unfettered personal and economic freedom, no matter what the cost to society. Such untrammeled freedom is not suitable to civilized humans. It is the freedom of the jungle. In other words, the strong have more of it than the weak. It is a notion of freedom which is inherently violent, because it is enjoyed at the expense of others. Such a notion of freedom legitimizes each and every increase in the wealth and power of those who are already powerful, regardless of the misery that will be suffered by others as a result. The use of the state to limit such Posted by ljwhit on 2005-09-30 23:10:35

The Real Threat of Fascism #3
The same economic reality existed in Italy between the two world wars. In that country, nearly all industrial activity was owned or controlled by a few corporate giants, F.I.A.T. and the Ansaldo shipping concern being the chief examples. Land ownership in Italy was also highly concentrated and jealously guarded. Vast tracts of farmland were owned by a few latifundisti. The actual farming was carried out by a landless peasantry who were locked into a role essentially the same as that of the share cropper of the U.S. deep south. As in Germany, the few owners of the nationPosted by ljwhit on 2005-09-30 23:07:06

The Real Threat of Fascism #2
Before the rise of fascism, Germany and Italy were liberal democracies. Fascism did not swoop down on these nations as if from another planet. To the contrary, fascist dictatorship was the end result of political and economic processes which these nations underwent while they were still democratic. In both these countries, economic power became so utterly concentrated that the bulk of all economic activity fell under the control of a handful of men. Economic power, when sufficiently vast, becomes by its very nature political power. The political power of big business supported fascism in Italy and Germany.
Business tightened its grip on the state in both Italy and Germany by means of intricate webs of cartels and business associations. These associations exercised a very high degree of control over the businesses of their members. They frequently controlled pricing, supply and the licensing of patented technology. These associations were private, but were entirely legal. Neither Germany nor Italy had effective antitrust laws, and the proliferation of business associations was generally encouraged by government. This was an era eerily like our own, insofar as economists and businessmen constantly clamored for self-regulation in business. By the mid 1920Posted by ljwhit on 2005-09-30 23:04:57

More Grist for the Mill, J. #1
The Real Threat of Fascism
by Paul Bigioni
Observing political and economic discourse in North America since the 1970Posted by ljwhit on 2005-09-30 23:03:01

The post that went missing included a description of what Rabbit as a Bang Bunny knows about building demolitions. Also what he deduces from watching the available video footage of all three buildings collapse.
...
To anyone with the right clues the cutter charges are very obvious and the classic demolition patterns of ALL THREE collapses are unmistakeable.
...
The most crucial thing Rabbit would offer to the discussion about what can be deduced from the actual video footage which is from many sources and readily available, all show what we are looking for, if we look for it.
..
The dust and debris, even other effects of shock waves are clearly visible as they precede the point of collapse all the way to the ground. They are to be seen about thirty stories below the point of collapse, not explainable that many stories below by any air displacement. Anyicipate that one from anyone who is thinking. Not thirty stories and not evenly as these seem. Bang.... Bang.... Bang
..
You can take the actual videos and watch them beside actual videos of Skyscraper demolitions, you will not be able to pick the difference.
...
No other skyscraper ever collapsed despite the fact that jetliners have flown into them and some have burned at three times the temperature and for days, without collapsing.
..
The WTCs were actually far better able to withstand such thigs than most, they had been designed to take up to at least three simulataneous jetliner strikes. Bet you did not know that JAY? It is all only seconds away if you want.
..
Now what Rabbit thinks is the clincher on the whole deal is a bit of science, called Gravity. Shall just post this, to make sure electrons will let Rabbit, before saying the next, because this was said in much more detail and yet was slurped once.
..
Fears maybe the WATCHERS in the swamp might have nicked it and are poring over the details now. Too many things said about bangs maybe.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-30 22:32:22

Damn Rabbit lost half his post, bad electrons, bad....
........Oh well
.
There is a Janitor who was the last person to leave WTC 1, and who was nationally reecognised for saving hundreds of lives. He came to work late that morning and was by chance in the basement on the morning arriving at work when he and others in the office felt an huge explosion and the walls and floor cracked. Then a technician who had been working in a lift shaft came running up from the next level screaming that there had been a massive explosion in the basement, and he was badly burnt and injured from the blast. The Janitor, helped this man to safety and as they were getting up to go, theynheard another explosion from the stories above...................that was the first airliner hitting them.................This story is backed up by twenty-seven witnesses including the man he rescued from the lift door.
.
Many firemen swear they heard explosions during the whole affair and there are recordings of some of their communications with their colleauges inside the WTCs. These communications show the fires were under control, also they indicate that explosions, consistent with cutter charges as described.
.
The Firemen have been sworn to non-disclosure agreements and the recordings of all the 2-ways have been confiscated by the FBI. So have all the video footage which would shine the most crucial light on some of the more radical theories around. The footage the government is WITHOLDING would proove or utterly destroy many of the "Alternative Theories" abounding.
..
Why would they do that JAY?
..
JAY if you wish to question anything Rabbit has presented as a FACT, you may do so, but then you will be expected to read the sources offerred.
..
Above all you mindless prick, try and get one thing into your thick skull.........It was long since pointed out that all the sources I was posting were via. PRISON PLANET.
.....You are the epitomy of an illiterate Internet user if you are unable to comprehend that a link is not defined by what is it's URL, and even Rabbit who can't html knows this much.
... As I said the first time it is for my convenience I am going after all these easy things via Prison Planet's archives.
...
try looking them up you stupid troll they are anything from BBC to CNN and Reuters, AP. Lots of your favorites provide information which can be used, so long as one is discerning and we are.
....You will have to check the sources and they are linked to others as necessary.
...........
If Rabbit felt like it he could get any of his facts sourced just by googling but why do that when Rabbit already knows where the things are stored.
...
Prove something if you can Jay, or question something if you can Jay. If all you can do is spruik for your cause and make an idiot of yourself in front of multiple witnesses, then do that too. The record of your stupidity will stand for all to enjoy even after as your various delusions fail even you over the days and weeks and months ahead.
..
The whole tower of DREAMS and LIES is Rotten and Weak. It is crumbling under your feet Jay.
.
Nasty Rabbit sometimes gets a grim satisfaction knowing that no amount of your delusional antics or faith based rantings will save you from the truth in the end.
..
Where once you could have been glad for that truth as it freed you, you have irrevocably placed yourself in a position where the truth has become your enemy, and you the enemy of truth.
..
That to a humble Rabbit does not sound like an enviable place in which to abide.
..
Suck eggs sunshine, when the day comes and you are sitting among the ashes of your dreams.....with your eyes open and nobody to blame but yourself, think about Rabbit who will be sitting somewhere safe and cosy with his little family having long since seen and prepared for the storm..Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-30 22:10:50

J says: Churchill once said (I canPosted by ljwhit on 2005-09-30 19:45:37

Well dear ones, what did the Rabbit tell you about this one?
The Rabbit who is seldom rabid, tries to be polite and loves all life, said this one is not worthy. In the world that this one would have for us, he would long since be gone.
Jay would bring us to a point where any of us could just take a gun and blow off his idiot head. What would be the harm in that? Short sharp and sweet. With the sort of tactical skills and vision for things, including reality, he would be a sitting duck in such a world.
That is the thing you Idiot NEO-CON stooges have not even thought about yet. The fact that free thinking decent and balanced people, independant thinking people will be the most successful and likely to triumph the tougher things get.
Get used to defeat Jay. You have a lifetime of it ahead of you. Rabbit has seen how little chance there is for even well intentioned and somewhat reasoned people like WTH to "get well". The fact is by comparison you have no chance at all. Rabbit has to admit that it was this reason why he went straight on the attack with this lame brain. Why bother? let's just give it it a good belting with the heaviest stick in the box and throw it on the garbage heap again..
You nice and clever ones have been painting the most excellent canvas of reason and Rabbit will stick to biting this one.
.
Sorry Liz, who is a very sweet girl and Rabbit is sad to show his angry self. Has Liz never seen a really angry Rabbit? When they bite and growl and even bark? If you haven't you would never believe it possible, if you have it will have been a memorable experience I'm sure.
Rabbits are gentle and love even funny snails and ants. The Rabbit does not even hold a grudge against the fox who kills and it's him as the cycle of life intended...............This does not mean Rabbit has to never defend himself, his loved ones or his IDEALS.............Nothing is more single minded in the pursuit of goals than a Rabbit..................You may have to look away from time to time dear Liz, the Rabbit will keep it clean, but this just means clean cuts with the Sword at this point..............................Christopher Robins Rabbit, with a Sword and shield...............and a very determined stare.................today.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-30 19:16:31

J,
No need to pull out the dictionary. I meant the same thing with both phrases. Mere repetition bores me. And your thick-headedness requires substantial repetition. The problem is comprehension on your part. Here is the sentence I wrote one more time.
You were arguing that Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-09-30 18:17:48

"The War on Freedom" by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
"The New Pearl Harbor" by David Ray Griffin
"Inside Job" by Jim Marrs
"CROSSING THE RUBICON" by Michael RuppertPosted by ljwhit on 2005-09-30 15:31:48

Regarding the books I mentioned relating to 9-11, I should correct myself on one point.
The book "ON BULLSHIT" is really just on bullshit... but it would be a useful and, oddly, very intellectual read.
J, the other books are quite serious works that raise important issue and questions and give loads of well-referenced information related to the pivotal issue we are discussing here. Only someone with lock-jaw of the mind and no sense of honesty could give these books a fair read and not find much there to ponder. Jay, this is about exploring for reality... converging on the best available approximation of the truth. At this point in time there is nothing available, that I know of, that is fully conclusive certainly not the sorry white-wash given us by the 9-11 Ommission). There is no true gain for any of us in getting stuck on some righteous position and being inflexible onto death. Deadness there. 'Let's not just cherry-pick or distort our intelligence like the neocons did.
Speaking of distorting intelligence: Did you know that one of Saddam's ex-son-in-laws was an intel assest for the neocons? Of course, you did. He testified that Saddam had been developing this and developing that, etc... WMD... 'And those transcripts were put out for public consumption, helping to whip things up. The Rest of the Story: It was later discovered that, in the very same intel transcripts, later on this guy describes how he personally oversaw the destruction of all that he had described. This part of what he had to say was kept secret. How's that for cherry-picking?Posted by ljwhit on 2005-09-30 15:24:18

J, it was the country of Iraq we visited our "shock and awe" upon... you do understand that don't you?
9-11 >>>>>> Al Qaeda ^^^^^?
9-11 >>>>>> Iraq ???????????????????
Al Qaeda >>>>> has substantial and historical verified ties to the various U.S. agencies CIA etal, the Pakistani SSI (Pak branch of CIA), Saudi Arabia, and so on...
Ties to Iraq are stabs in the dark and have no comparable substance. Why have we not followed the tracks that are clearest?
Odd isn't it, J, that the head of the Pakistani SSI (can't recall the name), who was the primary interfacer with Al Qaeda and terrorists in the region, just happened to come to the U.S. for secret consultations with intelligence/military/admin just two days before 9-11, leaving just a couple of days after. There is some reasonable evidence that this same man wired $100,000 to Mo Atta two weeks before 9-11. When this info began to leak, Mr. SSI quietly resigned and faded into his very comfortable woodwork. This particular curious thread was never inquired into by the 9-11 Ommission.Posted by ljwhit on 2005-09-30 14:58:13

Jay, I don't believe those particular stats were ever provided by you in this thread. Perhaps they are more compatible to the stats you had mentioned. I have yet to find a source that seems fully authoritative on the matter, and don't have the skills to interpret raw stats on my own. I have learned that part of the problem is that reliable stat info on the wealth/holding of the 'stratospheric elite' at the top end is quite scarce. So it remains somewhat of a mystery. 'But then I wouldn't think they would want to have the curtain pulled open to cast any more light their little game.Posted by ljwhit on 2005-09-30 14:31:57

Jay
When Luminous Beauty writes : " an unerring habit of avoidance " she is correct.
Deliberately diversionary would be a phrase I would use since I like the alliteration.
Jay writes : " My gut reaction to your observations is that the first two, without knowing more detail, could very easily be and, in the absence of any substantive evidence, very probably is coincidence "
Coincidence? Maybe and maybe not. I think not. Jay, you brought up Ockhams's Razor. In other words, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is probably a duck.
For detailed substantive evidence try typing " 9/11 insider trading " and " 9/11 war games " into a search engine. Pick and choose your own sources for confirmation.
Ijwhit was kind enough to provide the outline of the controlled demolition theory. Again, type " 9/11 WTC controlled demolition " into a search engine. Lots of sources to choose from.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-09-30 14:28:34

whit,
"Jay, if Rabbit hits me on the backside with a stick, am I then justified in smashing in your scull with a baseball bat?"
No, of course not. But you are assuming that I accept the notion that al Qaeda wasn't the one wielding the Rabbit's stick.
Sorry, but your gonna need a better sales pitch to convince me 9/11 was domestic terrorism perpetuated by Bush, Inc.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-30 14:19:55

lb,
"There was real credible intel that neither military command nor the civilian population, had the logistical capacity to do so."
Please connect the dots for me. Just because someone tells someone else they can't do it, how does that necessarily require that they will be listened to.
If all it took was logistic capacity to wage war, we'd have the military sciences down to, well, a science. The Jews at Masada didn't have a chance in hell, only a prayer. How come they didn't give up.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-30 14:16:19

whit,
What's wrong with a one-trick pony?
If F = ma yesterday, today, tomorrow and forever, does that mean it is not relevant?
Can we do better? Yes, oh God yes! But not with the same ol' tired Animal Farm logic that has been proven wrong, over and over and over again.
Churchill once said (I can't remember if I used this yet, but if I did, then you'll understand that I really like this) democracy is the worst form of governance, except for all that we have tried thus far.
I feel the same way about free-market economies.
I am not a utopianist. I do not throw out the baby with the bath water, at least not until someone comes up with something better. Should we abandon democracy because, for example, all the fears of our Founding Fathers about factional politics have been realized, beyond their wildest nightmares? When you come up with something better, yes.
Until then, no.
One-trick pony time. Yes, your pony has a point. There is an unequal distribution of wealth, and it'd be great to level it out. But time for my pony ride. 20th century. free-market vs command economies.
Give me a viable solution that is better and has not already been demonstrated to not work, and I'll play the band as we march down Main Street together.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-30 14:12:14

lb,
Thank you for the backhanded compliment. Please understand I am fighting a multi-front war here. It is not deviousness; it is just there are at least four different points flying about to keep track of.
But, "not that you made any claim of exclusive US moral righteousness".
ummm, I think we need another dictionary check here. Or maybe I misunderstood you when you used the word "monopoly".
www.dictionary.com says,
monopoly. Exclusive possession or control.
Now, I am not trying to be argumentative here. But when the points keep shifting, it is hard to keep track of.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-30 14:01:40

J, as far as the economics thing goes... you seem to be a one-trick pony. Knowing that the elephant's truck is like a big snake doesn't tell you everything about elephants.
Anyway, I'm hardly suggesting that we do worst than we are doing... not at all. I just think WE COULD DO BETTER for the common good, the greater good, the nation, you know... THE PEOPLE... functional democracy... all that dribble.Posted by ljwhit on 2005-09-30 13:55:20

whit,
My first reaction to your data. Controlled demolitions wouldn't cause great explosions; Concrete will create great explosions and pulverize to a fine dust when suddenly compacted under great pressure (30-60 stories of weight would do it); 500 feet out is not that far given that the towers were over 1000 feet tall (I could probably spit that far from that high - ok, maybe not, but how far out is deep left field from third base?); it was the first structural building to ever been hit by a fully loaded large commerical jet liner; explosions are more percussive than thermal and would be more likely to cause structurally damage and pulverize steel, not turn it into pools of molten steel.
But, I'll research it... Be nice if you could provide authoritative sources for me to start with, that'd be great. Web sites that advocate weather machines were used to create tsunamis; books that are written to sensationalize and make lots of money, are not.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-30 13:53:30

As I remember it from my readings, the "condition" that the Japanese (who were cleary ready to surrender) were negotiating was that the Emperor be kept as the figurehead leader of the country... since he was also recognized as the nation's religious leader.
'And the U.S. had no problem making this concession... AFTER they had dropped their Atomic bombs.Posted by ljwhit on 2005-09-30 13:46:22

"If that is RabbitPosted by luminous beauty on 2005-09-30 13:45:34

Jay, if Rabbit hits me on the backside with a stick, am I then justified in smashing in your scull with a baseball bat?Posted by ljwhit on 2005-09-30 13:25:01

"Those same intercepts clearly show Japan was digging in for a final victory or death struggle"
Not at all. They reported a patriotic and rhetorical call for the civilian population of Japan to dig in for a death struggle. There was real credible intel that neither military command nor the civilian population, had the logistical capacity to do so.
To hang your argument on the possible meanings of the word probable is weak. The conditionality is the careful diction of the reviewer and not the book. It would be good if you actually read it before making specious and sophomoric rhetorical third-hand arguments.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-09-30 13:23:28

Jay, I don't know what videos you watched, but the ones I watched show great explosion when the buildings collapsed. With 100 micron-fine dust from pulverized concrete being spewed more than 500 away from the buildings. Fire and passive collapsing would cause neither the explosion effect or the flour-fine dust. The dust cloud from the North Tower grew to 5 times the volume of the building within 30 seconds of the start of the collapse. The expansion of the dust cloud has been estimated to be 100 times greater than should have caused by each towers gravitational potential energy. Building 7, undamaged by Twin Towers debris, and with only two small areas of fire on the 7th and 12th floors minutes before it fell, collapsed into its own tidy footprint at a near free-fall speed, leaving the building adjacent to it totally unscathed. Its center collapsed ahead of its perimeter and streamers of smoked emerged from its facade... both characteristic of controlled demolition. It was the first structural steel building EVER to have the cause of its collapse attributed to fire alone. Previously-molten steel was found 7 levels below the ground at the towers and #7. Temperatures exceeding 2800 F would have been needed to produce such melting... temps not caused by the combustion of jet fuel. ETC.Posted by ljwhit on 2005-09-30 13:21:31

lb,
"His argument here is to show that the US does not have a monopoly on morality."
If that is Rabbit's argument, then I agree. I would appreciate it if you could quote my words that say we do have a monopoly. I will happily eat them.
But not having a monopoly does not mean we have none.
There is nothing immoral about putting up your dukes when someone takes a shot at you. Rabbit has consistently stated that America has no right.
And that I strenuously disagree.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-30 13:01:53

whit,
I don't suppose you could give me a Reader's Digest version? I don't think I can finish all that in just a couple days.
Basic scientific and mathematically principle: The more concise the theory, the more elegant the explanation, the more likely the truth.
I believe someone by the name of Occam devised a Razor like that....Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-30 12:48:10

whit,
I would rather have 1% of a 16 inch pie than 20% of a dime-sized cupcake.
I'll say it one more time. The history of economic systems in the 20th century clearly shows free-market systems far surpassing command systems.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-30 12:44:16

whit,
Thanks for doing your homework. Your statitics now match the statistics that I provided a couple days ago.
Question. Seriously. At what level do you believe those statisics wuld be reasonably equitable?Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-30 12:38:54

lb,
"Japan was probably prepared to surrender on conditional terms-but the United States would accept only unconditional surrender."
Probably? If I use the word probably, would you believe me? Japan was probably stalling, hoping the Americans would lose their resolve and turn tail and run.
I am not saying it is true. But it probably is as true as what you claim.
Those same intercepts clearly show Japan was digging in for a final victory or death struggle.
Read that and weep.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-30 12:34:25

prisonplanet.com
give me a break.
Next thing they'll be saying is that the Indian Ocean Tsunami was a deliberate act of war using massive weather machines.
Oh, wait. They are already saying that.
Silly me.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-30 12:30:55

Luminous Beauty is luminous indeed... and a beauty.
J has managed to frustrate you too. He must have great slurping pleasure... sooo much attention. But to suggest that J is in a dick-wagging contest. No! This passive-aggressive character is dickless in his heart, mind, and soul. He can wag only his tongue.Posted by ljwhit on 2005-09-30 12:30:29

David,
My gut reaction to your observations is that the first two, without knowing more detail, could very easily be and, in the absence of any substantive evidence, very probably is coincidence. But one would have to gather info on the history of such events and do some statistical comparison. Can you give me a little more detail or reference points for further research, especially on the stock options? Skepticism does not equate to closed-mindedness.
Having spent time in the military and participating in too many alerts and exercises, I can only say I do not find it surprising that at any given moment in time there is a military exercise going on somewhere. But that is not meant to be a repudiation of your question. I just don't find the coincidence too incredible. Many battles have been lost or won on such circumstances.
The military has been engaged in terrorist simulations since at least the early 80s, when I was in the service. And in the late 90s, intel did manage to catch wind of al Qaeda planning to hijack about a dozen aircraft simultaneously. If there is one thing the military is, is they are conservative and love war games. It is not surprising that the military developed such scenerios and wargamed them to death. But, it is a remarkable coincidence.
The controlled demolition theory I have heard and have summarily dismissed as not only lacking in any evidence whatsoever, but also the assertion that scientific facts refutes the official theory of the collapse is baseless. What specifically do you believe, or have you heard, that just couldn't have happened the way it happened?
Briefly, the bombing of the WTC in 1993 showed that even a single large explosion, one large enough to dig a whole several stories deep, was not enough to even do much, if any, structural damage to the building. So, it would require a controlled sequence of explosions, similar to legitimate modern demolitions that we have all seen.
Not only did the numerous video from the collapse show no signs of sequenced, staged, percussive explosions, but the science required for both buildings to collapse from the top down is not outrageous. The intense heat of the resulting jet fuel fires has been demonstrated as being sufficient to soften the steel supports at altitude. Once the top 20 or 40 stories started to drop, the kinetic energy of their falling overcame the structural resistance at each level. Each floor added to that energy, resulting in the collapse.
One argument I have heard repeated over and over is that as the building collapsed, it was remarkable that the buildings didn't tip over. Actually, it isn't so remarkable. The buildings collapsed from the top down, not from the bottom up. As each floor collapsed the building shrank. There was never much torque one way or another to tip the building over. But, watch the video. It didn't come straight down. There was tippage. Adjacent buildings were damaged, far more than would be allowed for normal demolitions.
The telling point for me on this is that as the building collapsed, you don't see windows blowing out, floor by floor, that you would expect to see with controlled demolitions.
But, if you have other info, I'd be happy to hear about it.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-30 12:29:00

Good one WHIT;
Will it inspire our good troll to actually do a little research rather than spout truisms and conventional opinion. I rather doubt it.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-09-30 12:28:59

Jay;
As a courtesy I have copied a list of references made by GhostRabbit to support his arguments. I don't expect you to have the perspicacity to go back and try and understand the precise nature of his contentions and how he uses these references as support. Just read the reports. It is the only text thus far established as a factual basis of argument. When and if you deign to provide some putatively authoritative reference of your own to back up your assertions then some debate over whose facts are most cogent can proceed as anything other than a dick-wagging contest.
....http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004/12090 04stillinsists.htm
..
...http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/210305real lidentity.htm
..
...http://prisonplanet.com/seven_of_the_wtc_hijackers_found_ _alive.html. http:/
...
/www.prisonplanet.com/saudis_paid_bin_laden_200m.html
...
...http://www.prisonplanet.com/new_revelations_on_911.htm
..
...http://prisonplanet.com/bush_senior_in_business_with_bin_ _laden.html
...
...http://www.prisonplanet.com/
the_bush_bin_laden_money_conn nection.html
..
.......http://prisonplanet.com/profits_of_death_insider_trad ding_and_9_11.html
..
... http://prisonplanet.com/profits_of_death_part_2_trading_with h_the_enemy.html
..
...http://prisonplanet.com/profits_of_death_part_3.html
..
....http://prisonplanet.com/suppresed_details_insider_tradin ng_cia.html
..
....http://prisonplanet.com/weve_hit_the_targets.html
..
...http://www.prisonplanet.com/prior_knowledge_of_sept_11_no ot_just_urban_legend.htmPosted by luminous beauty on 2005-09-30 12:13:38

Okay, Rabbit, etc.... WHIT it is then...
Jay, here is my opinion of you, at this point: To your resentment-filled little ego this is but a desperate game. You like all the attention and you take sadistic little pleasures in fucking with people whose ideas threaten and anger you. Maybe because that's the best you've got. I dunno, but you seem to have little integrity and a much contracted mind when it comes to objectively pursuing the truth. 'Not to say that you are automatically or necessarily wrong, just that you have a lot of avoidance to going places where your bullshit might not hold up. Wake up, Jay; being "right" is a game of the self-righteous ego hiding its pain, fear, and anger/hatred. This is not pleasing to God... Many will go before Him crying My God, My God, and He will not know them. While, in your imagination, Jay, you may seem to prevail... you get only to be "dead" right. Only the truth can set you free, and give you radiant life.
Again, Jay, about the stats on distribution of wealth: I asked that you provide me with your stat info and cite the sources for checking. I have not seen a straightforward response to that suggestion. I was unable to retrieve the article from which I had gotten my original info regarding "financial" wealth (0.25% / 50%); However, I did go online and research the matter again... and that accounts for the recent update/change in info. In fact, the best info sources I could find seemed to converge on this overview: the top 1% has 1/3 of the wealth in the country, the next highest 9% have another 1/3, and the bottom 90% get to fight over the remaining 1/3. If this picture is to you proof of how well our current corrupt syste (not a real free market) works, then it is my opinion that you should pull your head out of the dark place. My opinion: We all do better, when we All do better. You may be busy clutching you little piece of the pie and feeling superior because there are a lot of poor bastards who have done less-well than you. I have a vision for a harmonious world where obsolete forms of the struggle for survival are not deliberately perpetuated in service of the greedy.
Let's get it straight, Jay, I'm not trying to bullshit you here, I'm trying to get real. And you seem to be being a real shithead about it, constantly using the diversion of quibbling about trivia but avoiding getting real about the issues. You strain out the fly, Jay, but swallow the camel.
About the events of 9-11 and related matters: If you are open to learning new information what you seem not yet to know, regardless of how you might in the end evaluate it, let me suggest to you for starters some books (and they are well referenced and chock-full of citations for sources... so you could check out the info):
"On Bullshit" by Harry Frankfurt
"The War on Freedom" by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
"The New Pearl Harbor" by David Ray Griffin
"Inside Job" by Jim Marrs
"Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert
Now Mike Ruppert is the guy that you will just want to go crazy trying to scream away as a conspiracy nut. Only... only he has been very meticulous about doing his homework, J... his book is very well referenced.
Each of these books, J, has some difference... in emphasis, in info (possibly even some contradictions), etc... but they essentially converge on the point that in your great faith-based, unreferenced wisdom you want to avoid, that shatters the hub of all your spin,...the possibility that our nation was conned by 9-11 and that the greedy bastards who own our government are more ruthless and callous than will allow you your gibberish-filled slumber.Posted by ljwhit on 2005-09-30 12:03:55

Rabbit, you're getting too excited on this thread - and don't bite people's limbs off!! Otherwise, the only rabbit you're going to end up being like is General Woundwort - a case of our becoming what we hate the most.Posted by Liz on 2005-09-30 11:56:53

Doesn't Pat Robertson look evil, by the way?
I'm gonna post that pic on a Christian blog...Posted by Liz on 2005-09-30 11:55:03

Good point, Rabbit. (Boy this thread has GROWN since last I posted.. it's enormous!)
I expect we're all "in the thick" of things now.
I never used to want to say, Rab, where I came from, except that I wasn't American, because there used to be some awful, quite sinister trolls on this site...
But the worst seem to have gone now - along with some of my old friends on here!
OK then: I hail from the British Isles... but have no British ancestry!Posted by Liz on 2005-09-30 11:45:55

Rabbit has already posted sources for who was doing the trading prior to 911.
Rabbit thinks you are giving this dimwitted one too much rope, he will only get tangled up in more rope, best to keep him on a short leash and then he can't start running all over the place.
Lastly, make him source his FACTS. He is not worthy of respect if he continues to avoid sourcing. He thinks he is GOD and letting him say anything without sourcing is encouraging this belief. HE is a fantasist.
Sorry David, but this one disgusts Rabbit more than most for some reason. He is a Pox.
Good night again.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-30 11:39:56

"Legitimacy is at the core of the argument and has been invoked on both sides of the argument here."
It isn't but you would like it to be. You cannot dictate terms nor their meanings or interpretations in an open debate. These things must be negotiated in an atmosphere of intellectual honesty. A concept you have shown no evidence of comprehending. Nor have you shown any familiarity with the rigors of logical thought. Just a propensity for tossing out spurious rhetoric and an unerring habit of avoidance when someone calls you on it.
"And I do not hear the whisper. Your argument implies that if it is ok for cops to carry guns, then why canPosted by luminous beauty on 2005-09-30 11:12:43

Jay writes:
"If we are going after the wrong group of terrorists, then who are the right ones. Again, the only argument being made here is with references to facts without actually providing them."
You might consider reading the links that GhostRabbit has so generously provided. These are the references to facts to which you are stubbornly oblivious.
" Thank you for the conditional agreement on dropping the bombs on Japan. When evidence is presented that this was not the case, IPosted by luminous beauty on 2005-09-30 11:12:11

Jay writes : " David, You are a gentleman. I apologize if you got caught in the line of fire during my moment of pique. "
Thank you for the compliment, I do try to be a gentleman. No apology required, getting caught in the line of fire comes with the territory, but thank you for the consideration.
Please do not take my criticism too harshly but the points you raised, while cogent, are relatively unimportant compared to the larger issue of prior knowledge, within the USA government, of the 9/11 attacks.
Some observations and questions I have about the events of 9/11 and the investigation of the same are as follows :
There is evidence of airline stock transactions that preceded the 9/11 attacks that would strongly suggest prior knowledge of the impending attacks. Was Osama bin Laden responsible for the huge spike in "put options" on airline stocks preceding 9/11? Or someone else?
On the morning of 9/11 there were several US war games in operation. Some were simulations of plane hijackings. These drills paralyzed the response of the Air Force, FAA, NORAD, etc. Was Osama bin Laden coordinating these war games and drills, and subsequent stand down, as a cover for the hijackings on the morning of 9/11? Or someone else?
The World Trade Center Twin Towers and adjacent building no.7 collapsed on 9/11 in a manner which, based on scientific facts, refutes the "official theory" of the collapses and suggests the collapses were likely the result of controlled demolitions. Was Osama bin Laden capable of arranging for a controlled demolition to collapse those buildings on 9/11? Or someone else?Posted by David in Canada on 2005-09-30 10:43:51

By the way Jay stop preening. You keep going on about some supposedly insulting remarks you made to Rabbit, as if you did. Rabbit never noticed anything and cannot help but wonder what you seem so proud of. Doubt anybody else noticed anthing special, everything you have said has been pitiful honestly and if anybody is insulted by your poncing and prancing, it is your mother. If you had any worth you would be devaluing your self too but it probably isn't an issue.
So relax little one, you have neither annoyed or insulted Rabbit.
Rabbit is not sorry that you find him so aggravating though because Rabbit can see you are a piece of muck and need to be scraped off the floor, just for the tidiness factor.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-30 10:10:30

Jay you are an idiot and you don't deserve any respect, suck up to folks all you want, you are not winning any ground and you are a coward as well as a dunce with no facts.
Your entire last post is a load of speculative, innacurate generalised and totally unsupported garbage. There is not even anything worth responding to. Not a single claim of a Fact and as usual just your opinions dressed up in a hat which says FACT.
You are a credit to nothing, thank God Bush has only got Brain dead twerps like you to back him.
Did you not hear yet that the 19 alleged hijackers were not real, and Rabbit has gioven sevral sources for the fact.
So without sources for your claims you are just lying. Seven are alive and well, how does that permit of them being suicide terrorists?
Not the sort of detail you would let get in the way of a good lie though eh?
Where do you get the "theory" that anybody acted as muscle men to help take over any planes? are you psychotic? do you have dreams which reveal these things to you? A special frog who only you can see maybe?
What basis do you use to conclude that any terrorists actually took over any planes on 911? Rabbit asks because he has never ever seen or heard of any.
David and others please do not lower yourselves by allowing this idiot to keep on spinning his faith based crap, he is making fools of anybody who takes him seriously, Rabbit is off to bed, but will be dissappointed with any who allow this ridiculous fool to keep pretending his word gives credence to anything without sources when he is specifically being asked to prove his alleged facts.
We have heard this bleating before, well it's time these clowns were made to follow the same rules of logic and reason as we expect of each other. If he has nothing buit opinions with no provable Facts of substance thenm treat the little weasel with the contempt he desrves.
To do less is contemptible of itself and only encourages the creep.
He actually thinks he's getting his "message" through to you, and he has the temerity to ignore structured and sourced debate, calling it stupid with a flick of his omniscient wrist.
Then for an encore Jay spouts self contradictory opinions and says see the perfect argument I have created, are you stupid Liberals not impressed with my superior reasoning sklills. Jays FACTS are so perfect that evrybody knows them and they don't need proof.
You are a TWAT Jay and contemptible. You are welcome to your opinions but you have only got the opinions you have been given by others. No reason at all.
You are pregnant but it isn't your baby, you are just a surrogate for Dubya and the Devil.
A mind whore................................................................With the Pox.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-30 10:02:42

David,
You are a gentleman. I apologize if you got caught in the line of fire during my moment of pique.
There would be three points I would bring up in response to your questions:
First, I would not characterize the 9/11 Commission as the "Official" investigation, but only in the sense that it gives the Commission authoritative status that they did not live up to. Yes, it sounds like hair splitting, but it is a difference that makes a difference. And I personally so love splitting hairs.
The Administration, the Executive Branch, certainly disagreed with much of what was criticized, left out and recommended by the report; the Legislative Branch was, and still is, of many minds about the subject. The fact that one Commission member was intimately involved in pre 9/11 decisions (Jamie Gorelick) and did not recuse herself is troubling and casts doubt, in my mind and in light of subsequent revelations that I will discuss shortly, of the veracity and integrity of the investigation.
Second, the Commission was made up of equal representation from both political parties. I do not begrudge the very successful efforts the Commission made in remaining nonpartisan, but I fear that the conflicting priorities of investigation and politics rendered the Commission impotent. It is certainly telling that very little new information came out of the report. At best, it was a compilation of what was already known and what had already been agreed upon on what needed to be done. Everybody got something, but ultimately nobody really got anything of substance.
Third, the fact that the successes of the data mining operation of Able Danger and information about Iran's support role in the operation were available to the Commission, and not used, deeply troubles me. One of the most scathing criticisms from the Commission was that the mindset of the intel community allowed critical information to be discounted and ignored simply because the information didn't fit the world view of most intelligence people. The facts didn't fit the prevailing theories so the facts were ignored. Unfortunately, this is where the Commission fails on two critical points. They saved their harshest criticism for the only actors in the play who had no political clout, and the Commission themselves are guilty of the same sins of fitting facts to theories.
The Commission discounted intel, that was widely available before the Commission started, of the links between al Qaeda and Saddam. This information has never been properly refuted and the Czech government who reported it have not wavered from their initial reports. The Commission completely ignored any intel that pointed a finger at Iran providing transportation and logistic support, including 15 of the 19 hijackers who served as muscle men, taking over the aircrafts so Atta and his pilots could fly the planes.
My take on this (that means opinion to anyone who can't tell the difference) is this was all political. Many people are afraid that Bush will rush America into attacking another country (Syria, Iran, North Korea are prime candidates) and the Commission didn't want to give Bush the rhetoric ammo he would need to push for such an event.
Having said that, I generally do agree and accept what the Commission report says. They just didn't say enough.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-30 08:03:39

Sorry some of that JAY crap came out as Rabbit's words they are not. So just to deal with them.
.
"disagree about your Careful analysis comment. ljwhit used the A-bomb reference to argue against the morality of American actions in the Middle East after 9/11"...
..
WHAT?
-----"and bunny face has argued that America has no legitimate reason for accusing Middle East terrorists for 9/11 or for attacking Iraq.
.
Bunny FAce?....Jay is a poobum!
---"Bunny face has explicitly argued that Middle East hatred legitimatizes the act."
..
You bloody lunatic...........Bunny Face has not explicitly argued any such thing, you...you...nincompoop!
----"It doesnPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-29 22:35:23

Ah...Now I see. If Rabbit seemied a bit confused the posts on this page it is because the whole early thread suddenly dissapeaderd from one refresh to the next, Rabbit thought Jay had said something over the top and had the thread pulled or something.
Now I can see his rambling LIES in all their nakedness.
You lost your arms too, nothing anybody needs to do to prove you an idiot Jay Boy.
If we are going after the wrong group of terrorists, then who are the right ones. Again, the only argument being made here is with references to facts without actually providing them.
....
NO NO NO you damned fool, you are destroying whole countries in the name of some half assed ideas about who might actually have had anything to do with them. We are attacking an innocent party to any IMAGINARY bogey men you care to come up with.
You have been given FACTS presented with Sources and what have you got? NOthing so don't come roundtalking about things of which you know nothing.
Where are any actual sources for all your grand facts?
You have been presented with FACTS by others who have not gone to the trouble to source them yet but they can and will if you ask.
When does Jay stop pretending to be a man and actually "PUT UP"..... You are a supreme numbskull and a craven coward, you have proven nothing but your own lack of clues.
Others can mess about with your little half assed opinions you call Facts, but Rabbit waits for a single reference to anything which shows you are anything but a pitiful boastful worm at heart...YOU grubby thing, you look more wormlike and slimy as you duck and dive from every straight request. You like to sling insults too but just can't seem to get it up today, so how about saying some FACT proves any opinion you care to name and prove your damned FACT...........
...
Does this dimwit even understand that what makes a FACT, a FACT is the FACT that it can be proven?..
...
He doesn't get it does he?
Thank you for the conditional agreement on dropping the bombs on Japan. When evidence is presented that this was not the case, IPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-29 22:25:56

Jay, have you examined the evidence that independant investigators have presented?
Or do you just not consider it out of hand?
Don't you think that there are some questions that the 9/11 commission convenienlty ignored in their investigation?Posted by David in Canada on 2005-09-29 22:16:16

Jay, I can't provide you with any facts or substantive evidence since I am not a member on the 9/11 Commission or any other organization that investigated the matter. I can examine the evidence, circumstantial and direct, presented by both the official investigation and the evidence, circumstantial and direct, presented by independent investigators. Some evidence is credible and some is not.
Don't you have any doubts at all about any of the official story of 9/11?
Is in not possible that there is a coverup?Posted by David in Canada on 2005-09-29 22:08:14

Jay all of your remarks have been CRUDE in any normal meaning of the word, which specific words are you now refferring to?
..
Nobody else here thinks you are worth taking seriously or deserving of politeness at this point either suspects Rabbit, so don't assume because Rabbit is taking the most Bites out of you, others could care less how you carry on at this point we are ready for anything.........Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-29 22:05:38

Now that you mention it David, it is a lousy font, and it isthis and the format which authors much of Rabbit's efforts to.......
.
---Communicate clearly.
..
Whit it is then.
Unless we are put to rights by the trully enlightened Whit.
.
Now what happened to the thread?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-29 22:02:02

.. is it IJWHIT or LJWHIT? l and I look the same in the font being used.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-09-29 21:44:47

I am here. Just catching up on the thread.
Collecting my thoughts.
Luminous Beauty is Gloriously Bright.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-09-29 21:37:57

Jay, Did you blow a fuse or something?
What the heck just happened? David?
Ljwhit?
Jay why can't you just behave like a sensible perosn and debate?
.
.You can get the hang of it, Facts supported by Sources...Justify your opinions.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-29 21:33:59

What the heck just happened?.........
Testing?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-29 21:31:31

To all,
I apologize for my crude remarks to the Rabbit. But as Bill Moyers has said here,
bullies cannot be appeased. they must be confrontedPosted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-29 20:51:36

LB,
LB,
If we are going after the wrong group of terrorists, then who are the right ones. Again, the only argument being made here is with references to facts without actually providing them.
Thank you for the conditional agreement on dropping the bombs on Japan. When evidence is presented that this was not the case, I'll address it.
I disagree about your Careful analysis comment. ljwhit used the A-bomb reference to argue against the morality of American actions in the Middle East after 9/11 and bunny face has argued that America has no legitimate reason for accusing Middle East terrorists for 9/11 or for attacking Iraq. Bunny face has explicitly argued that Middle East hatred legitimatizes the act. It doesn't take careful reading. Just a basic ability to read English.
Legitimacy is at the core of the argument and has been invoked on both sides of the argument here.
And I do not hear the whisper. Your argument implies that if it is ok for cops to carry guns, then why can't criminals. No hypocrisy there.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-29 20:50:09

David,
Correction. That should read,
does not put our beliefs on an equal basis.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-29 20:48:48

David,
Thank you for clarifying that is your opinion. Too many people here are presenting their conclusions as facts. For example, the continued repetition that 9/11 was orchestrated by high level US officials without providing a shred of evidence. With regard to your opinion, I believe you are wrong and will continue to believe that until you provided substantive evidence to the contrary. But, just because our opinions differ, does not put are beliefs on an equal basis. You must provide the facts proving U.S. involvement in 9/11. As Lincoln once said, I cannot prove a negative. That is illogical.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-29 20:47:40

Rabbit,
Put up or shut up.
Your shrieking calls for facts belay the fact that the facts you present are mere opinions and you have yet to provide facts.
Bite me, you overgrown rodent.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-29 20:46:34

ljwhit,
Are you saying it is a crime to pursue al Qaeda? How so? Is it a crime to arrest criminals? Do not police employ force to arrest criminals? Do we arrest the police for breaking and entering when executing an arrest warrant? And to answer the inevitable question, yes, I see America as the de facto world police. If not us, then who? If not now, when?
So, it is hypocrisy to attempt to prevent nuclear proliferation? Just because we have them, so must everyone else? It'd be great if we could put the genie in the bottle. Stupidity and suicide are greater sins than hypocrisy.
Terrorism is never legitimate. Terrorist are not freedom fighters, or vis versa. Acts of terrorism are acts of terrorism.
How could the American colonists be considered terrorism? What act did they perform that was terrorism?
Japan was far from defeated. Japan was digging in; recently declassified radio intercepts confirm that. They also show Germany was shipping nuclear materials via submarine to Japan so they could build a radiological device, a dirty nuclear bomb. Is your argument dependent on Japan being already defeated, or does your logic stand even with an intransigent enemy? And if it does, what should Truman have done?
And to the morality of an unequal distribution of wealth, I have already made the argument that the 20th century success stories were by and large democratic and free market solutions.
On a more personal note: Abraham Lincoln was born in very modest surroundings and became one of our most famous presidents; Mark Twain (born a poor Samuel Clemens) became one of America's most beloved and honored humorists; Paul Allen was born to a middle class family whose father worked at a library and has since become one of the richest men in the world; Steven Jobs' father was a Syrian-American professor and founded Apple Computer; John D. Rockerfeller started modestly and got rich in oil and founded the Rockerfeller dynasty; J.P Morgan started with a silver spoon in his mouth and soon far eclipsed his father; John Jacob Astor was born to a butcher in Germany and made a fortune in the fur trade; Benjamin Franklin was the son of a candle maker and became one of America's most highly honored founding fathers; Frank Lloyd Wright grew up in a Wisconsin farming town and became the most famous architect of our time; Henry H. Rogers' father was a small-town grocer and made a fortune in oil after pooling $600 of his own cash with a partner into an oil refinery, making $30,000 in their first year; Horatio Alger epitomized and memorialized the American rags-to-riches story.
I think American democracy and American market economics have more than proven their chances.
And that is what is called cold hard facts.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-29 20:43:20

JAY CLINE says:
"Still, conclusions without facts is a no-no, per our furry moderator."since you have gotten the idea here"
..
Excellent, you have almost got it, it is close and we'll run with it Jay.
..Now the second half of the idea, (odd Rabbit did not realise it could be split, like the atom I guess) FACTS need to be established via SOURCES if they are challenged.
Rabbit dares to speak on behalf of many when he challenges all your facts. All of the things you wish to say are facts, ARE NOT. PROVE IT, or SHOVE IT.....Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-29 20:22:05

Today in America the best paid one-fifth of the population receives about one half of all national income, while the bottom one-fifth receives less than 4 per cent. The distribution of wealth in America is even more unbalanced. Here, the top one-half per cent of all property owners control over 25% of all wealth; while the top 5% sit on nearly 70% of wealth and property.
Behind this skewed distribution of wealth and income stand a few giant corporations who own or control nearly all newspapers, television networks and radio stations, movie companies, book publishers, and other sources of information and means of communication. Both of America's major political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, are dependent on these corporations and the few super-rich individuals and families associated with them. In fact, nearly all major offices in the US government, whether elected or appointed, are filled by individuals from this corporate network.
What chance does democracy have under such conditions? What chance does a true free market have under such conditons? Mussolini once said that fascism would better be called "corporatism" since it was the combined control of an authoritarian government and "business" leadership. We are talking here, Jay, not of servants of the people, but of masters. Few are aware of or can remember how in the 1930s so many Americans viewed economic fascism as the wave of the future, and a version of this "planned capitalism" still prevails today, primary for the benefit of large established corporations.
Just more grist for the mill, Jay.Posted by ljwhit on 2005-09-29 19:36:13

Missed these Jay and they are such pearls they should not go unnoticed.
"Is it hypocrisy, in a time of war, to use a weapon, against an intransigent enemy, that kills 100,000 people but saves the lives of a million soldiers?
.......
Do you know of such a situation? Are you inferring that the "Accidental" murder of 150,000 (Is closer to truth) people in Iraq "So Far" has saved a Million Soldiers?
Can Jay add up? Are you on something Jay?
The troop numbers in Iraq have not been above 150,000 as far a Rabbit knows. Are you seriously convinced in your little dark cellar of a mind that all of these troops and another 6 times that number were likely to die in Iraq if those 150,000 "So Far" Iraq civilians had not died? Actually we need to calculate the future disease and Birth deformities etc which will plague Iraq forever now thanks to the means by which those deaths have occurred. Depleted Uranium!!!!
.....
.....
.....
PEOPLE...........What can Rabbit say?...It is not possible for Rabbit to express himself on a Public Forum, with his emotions unchecked. ....Discussing, actually having to debate the the horror, with self righteous C**TS like this is sometimews enough to send even Rabbit's blood pressure through the roof.
..
One of these days Rabbit is going to put on his best "Anger and Loathing Face" take a picture and post it somewhere so it can be linked to in place of wholly inadequate words of outrage...........GRRRRR!
"Is it hypocrisy to criticize the current commander-in-chief for the deaths of 1800 soldiers, but to criticize a previous C-in-C for saving 1,000,000?"
....
The actual Death Toll of American Troops is long since in excess of 2000, Jay the FACT is it crossed the 2000 mark a month or more ago, officially. Since then all public discussion of the numbers, including on sites such as this, has remained hovering around the 1800-1900 level. ..............Has nobody else noticed this? It is quite weird to see, because even a rough estimate shows we cannot have been around the 1900 mark for more than a month. That does not of course include the deaths of service personell who die after leaving Iraq on the way to Germany. The actual US deaths are closer to 6, 000 by best estimates. The deaths of Non-american soldiers, ie South American Mercenaries and Mercs from all over, this is the biggest collection of mercenaries seen in a modern War thinks Rabbit, just a guess, but looks like it. Their deaths are not reported.
As for whatever previous Presidents you now want to discuss, get real Jay.
..
We don't want to talk about Ancient Greek Philosophy, Buddha (Who is not a Hero, he was a shining one is all) or any other president than the one of the moment, unless it's relevant.
What would be relevant would be an actual relevant FACT presented with a source from you, JAY.........Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-29 19:24:30

David the thread is not so far off topic if we keep remebering we are examing the modus operandi of the God Squad. See this Jay, he is performing like a trouper, totally unprovable set of standard program ideas nad not a skerrick of actual Facts so far to back anything up. It is a completely faith based argument he is presenting and with a little patience and practice we can run this goat across the stage in all his finery and use him as a study in Faith Based Reasoning....... (What a Beautiful Oxymoron).
We are actually "RECKONING WITH THE GOD SQUAD", which is the very topic in which we are engaged. Trust Rabbit. Even if it is not what Rabbit thinks, it is similar and we can use it.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-29 18:57:25

I was just going to post something innocuous just to be able to get e-mails and follow this conversation, but I have to get in my $0.02.
Just plain Jay says:
"Is it hypocrisy to go after a group of terrorists and their infrastructure and their sponsors after they murder 3000 people in cold blood?"
No. But it is if you intentionally go after the wrong group of terrorists. Questions have been raised which Jay dismisses without addressing the concomitant facts of reference. Not hypocrisy, just intellectual laziness.
" Is it hypocrisy, in a time of war, to use a weapon, against an intransigent enemy, that kills 100,000 people but saves the lives of a million soldiers?"
It is if you say that is the reason for using that weapon, but the actual reason was otherwise. Especially if the stated reason can be shown to be false, which is indicated by the available evidence.
"Is it hypocrisy to criticize the current commander-in-chief for the deaths of 1800 soldiers, but to criticize a previous C-in-C for saving 1,000,000?"
Not equivalent. First case criticizing CIC for lying causing deaths. Second criticism for lying about saving 1M. Criticizing both CICs for lying, decidedly not hypocritical. Consciously promulgating false analogies is intrinsically hypocritical.
" Is it hypocrisy to call an act of war, such as the dropping of the A-bomb, an act of terrorism, but to assert that an act of war on our own civilian population is a legitimate expression of an aggrieved and oppressed people?" If anyone here were actually arguing that you would be correct.
Careful reading shows that no one is seeking to legitimize the 911 attacks, but rather seeking an empirical and objective understanding of their cause. If someone pokes you in the nose because you insult him, the facts legitimize neither him/her striking you nor your insults. To deny the insult is hypocrisy.
"Is it hypocrisy to assert that Iran has legitimate defense interests in procuring nuclear weapons, but to call the only act of actually using them illegitimate? If the use of nuclear weapons is not legitimate, then how can IranPosted by luminous beauty on 2005-09-29 18:52:59

But a final comment on 9/11 if I may.
You will ask for facts and evidence. I don't know what happened. Deciding what is true and what is false is very difficult. Who knows what really happened? I don't think we will ever truly know. It will fade into the realm of " how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? ".Posted by David in Canada on 2005-09-29 18:51:09

Is it hypocrisy to assert that Iran has legitimate defense interests in procuring nuclear weapons,
......No that is the truth Jay, they have legitimate defence interests due to aggression and threats of aggression from USA and Israel. It is indeed hypocrisy for America to claim moral superiority, once the fact of the Atom Bombs use, the actual motives and lack of NEED, is known. Like today for instance.
Using them at the time seemed fair and reasonable to MOST Americans and that was not Hypocritical. In this place the Hypocrites came a couple of generations later. YOU Jay.
....
Jay you are not ready to comprehend this but Iran does not Scare rabbit in the least if it should aquire a few Nuclear weapons. The Iranians can be relied upon to show more humanity and consideration of the consequences of their actions than the two powers with Lots of Nuclear Weapons which Scare a majority of the World's people. USA and Israel. The rest are all pretty sane and Rational. You are in no position to question that. It is an Objective view point from outside the scenario, as a part of the rest of the world so to speak. You as an American Jay cannot as a subject actually challenge Rabbit's assertion in this case. What's the bet th irony will be lost on the clown?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-29 18:48:40

Jay is a prime HYPOCRITE, but it is not as if anybody needs Rabbit to tell them this.
Since he talks nothing but Rubbish Rabbit is forced to throw his Rubbish out.
As I predicted he is indeed without legs today. Still fighting valiantly our black knight is but not looking good. Jay if you are Wolf, and it is well within the bounds of possibility, Rabbit will soon prove the fact. Actually you will prove it with rabbit's help. We need not waste time on what are admitted unsubstantiated opinions, you are the GOD Sqad Wolf, or his twin brother. You can call yourself what you want, and so can Rabbit. My handle is short, accurate and honest.
Yours might be one or all of these things if we knew what it was. Not that I care to be honest. You are what you say around here and we can see you clearer all the time.
Now for Jay's Rubbish. His paltry pack of pickled puke cast up in lieu of actual debate.
....
"Is it hypocrisy to go after a group of terrorists and their infrastructure and their sponsors after they murder 3000 people in cold blood?"
............No Jay that sounds OK. Do you have a group of terrorists who 'you know' murdered 3000 people in mind? The closest known event is still being investigated and there is a chance that a US government sponsored group did do such a thing recently. Once those investigations reach a satisfactory, ie: evidence based: conclusion Rabbit certainly hopes that the spomsors and perpetrators are "Gone After"
......A similar question Jay, is it not Hypocrisy to attack a whole nation of people who never did or even said anything against America, illegally and defying Geneva conventions as well as International Resolutions about Banned Weapoms of War? Then to turn around and claim such moral high ground that one's OWN WORD should be sacrosanct and ample proof of anything, even if volumes of evidence say otherwise? Doews this fit into any category of Hypocrisy for Jay, the eminent Man who does not PLAY KIDS GAMES.
Is it hypocrisy, in a time of war, to use a weapon, against an intransigent enemy, that kills 100,000 people but saves the lives of a million soldiers?
Is it hypocrisy to criticize the current commander-in-chief for the deaths of 1800 soldiers, but to criticize a previous C-in-C for saving 1,000,000?
Is it hypocrisy to call an act of war, such as the dropping of the A-bomb, an act of terrorism, but to assert that an act of war on our own civilian population is a legitimate expression of an aggrieved and oppressed people?
.........Not at all Jay, what good are such Rhetoric Questions to you? You are reaching for a life-buoy and grabbed a brick there son.
Once the ACTUAL perpetrators and Sponsors of 911 are KNOWN Grief and expression will at least have a valid target. ...........In the mean time my dimwitted morsel of manhood, (perhaps an old foreskin), those investigations are being seriously hampered even blocked by the US government and it's agencies. That is a FACT, and it is yet another FACT in an increasing list of FACTS presented as such by Rabbit to you, and as yet not challenged. Spouting unqualiified opinions is not a challenge to sourced FACTS Jay. Try and keep up here Idiot, you are not debating, just rolling around on the floor waving your arms, and you might as well forget those legs, they won't go back on.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-29 18:48:11

And this thread is way off topic.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-09-29 18:41:24

Jay Cline writes : " .. To charge Bush, Inc as the mastermind of creating a 9/11 commission (publically hostile to the mastermind) to provide Posted by David in Canada on 2005-09-29 18:27:59

How was the 9-11 Commission, better referred to as the 9-11 Ommission, "hostile" to the chimp. The chimp only agreed to allow an investigation if its scope was to be restricted to "lessons learned". And the chimp also got to hand-pick the person who would be the chairman, and heading the investigation. Let's face it, Jay, this "investigation" was about as legit and the Warren Commission and its magical bullet. To quote the beginning of a memo from the Assistant Attorney General at that time to that commission: "THE PUBLIC MUST BE SATISFIED that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates..."
Jay, since, you have pronounced me "dead wrong" on my facts concerning the distribution of wealth. I would like to challenge you to demonstate my error but producing your "facts" on the matters and citing your sources so that I can verify that you are right. Are is that getting too real for you. My information was from recall, but were not fabricated by me, but perhaps they are wrong. Since you said so, absolutely and adamantly... let's see what you got. This could be a learning experience for us both. I am sincere.Posted by ljwhit on 2005-09-29 15:42:21

No, Jay, it is not hypocrisy to try to bring murderers to justice. It IS hypocrisy to use the fact of one crime (in which there is the possibility of government complicity) as a rationale to commit a crime of even greater magnitude against others.
It IS hypocrisy, Jay, to have a large arsenal of atomic weapons, to continue to develop nuclear technology for war, to actually be using that technology, to have been the only nation to have ever used nuclear bombs AND then to tell others that THEY have no right to have such weapons to defend themselves.
An "act of terrorism" could concievably be a legitimate expression of an aggrieved and oppressed people, I suppose (altho I never said these things). The British certainly considered the rebel colonists a bunch of terrorists. Yet, unnecessarily dropping atomic bombs on densely populated cities of an already defeated enemy for the "affect" of it would not seem to be the expression of an oppressed people. Truthfully, both acts are terrible, and sinful I reckon, but it still doesn't seem quite like apples and apples to me. Maybe because of the dramatic difference in the scale of things.Posted by ljwhit on 2005-09-29 15:19:29

In response to Mr. Christopher:
(note: if I misrepresent anything you have said, please feel free to enlighten me. Buddha happens to be one of my heroes)
The point of contention that the Bush administration has used 911 as itPosted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-29 14:25:51

After going back and rereading all the postings, I realize the comments directed at wolf and beast are being sent my way.
Apologies for not adopting a animistic token. I am just plain Jay. When I became a man, I gave up childish mannerisms.
Any comments meant for me should be so posted.
As far as ignoring 9/11 allegations on this posting, I haven't seen any credible ones yet. Any response I might make to allegations made thus far, prior to Mr. Christopher's latest post, has already been offered by my comments about conspiracy wingnuts. But if you can make any credible allegations without too much flourish, if you can avoid violating space-time causality, if you can get your numerical facts straight, I'd be more than happy to expound my thoughts upon them.
I ain't afraid of no vermin.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-29 14:08:27

When the going gets tough, the beast merely ignores the 911 investigations. Can't say that I blame him much though.
The point of contention that the Bush administration has used 911 as it's modus operandi, so to speak, is well taken and pointing out the dubious nature of the facts as presented by the 911 panel is most apropos. That there exists a reasonable suspicion of a possible complicity on the part of those (figures within the U.S. hierarchy), who would stand to gain by such an event, is indeed plausible and worthy enough to base opposing views of the evangelically associated conservative agenda. But it is the direction of that argument here, the allusion to references without primary focus and the interpolation of circumstantial evidence in the supposition of blame that has allowed the beast to reduce it's inference to minutia and further a distance from the topic.
Having had direct contact with those identified as the ones responsible for actually piloting the planes that flew into the WTC, I've had close interest in the investigations that have since followed. My interest was recently piqued again with the revelation of 'Able Danger' and the 911 commision's indifference to it's relevance. And now, disturbing evidence of further government cover ups as this story unfolds.
What I find particularly disturbing are reports indicating Mohammed Atta was first documented by intel as early as the year 2000. So how is it then that I knew him as a flight student in the Fall of 1997 and was suspicious immediately of his demeanor and shared my concern with associates -- but stopped short of contacting the FBI. You figure someone else with higher authority would know about them.
I'm convinced that 911 was the result of an orchestrated plot involving any number of (and perhaps unlikely) players that shared a common greed. The false reasoning for taking over Iraq is bad enough, but using the 911 event as justification is just over-the-top obscene.
I'd looking forward to meaningful discussions (elsewhere) on the subject and revelations to come -- pinning my hopes of discerning the truth on the individual heroic efforts of honest investigators of conscience, people such as that likes of a Daniel Ellsberg.
Welcome to Terrorland:
http://www.madcowprod.com/08232005.htmlPosted by Tim Christopher on 2005-09-29 12:55:21

whit,
Is it hypocrisy to go after a group of terrorists and their infrastructure and their sponsors after they murder 3000 people in cold blood?
Is it hypocrisy, in a time of war, to use a weapon, against an intransigent enemy, that kills 100,000 people but saves the lives of a million soldiers?
Is it hypocrisy to criticize the current commander-in-chief for the deaths of 1800 soldiers, but to criticize a previous C-in-C for saving 1,000,000?
Is it hypocrisy to call an act of war, such as the dropping of the A-bomb, an act of terrorism, but to assert that an act of war on our own civilian population is a legitimate expression of an aggrieved and oppressed people?
Is it hypocrisy to assert that Iran has legitimate defense interests in procuring nuclear weapons, but to call the only act of actually using them illegitimate? If the use of nuclear weapons is not legitimate, then how can Iran's possession of nuclear weapons be anything but hypocrisy?Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-29 09:57:30

Jay says: Well, dung appears to be as prolific as bunnies here. The only nugget of worth appears to be ljwhitPosted by ljwhit on 2005-09-29 09:32:07

Hypocrisy, Jay, and I think you can be simple enough to appreciate it is, to give an example, vilifying a manner of behavior/acting done by others and then pretending that the same behavior or acts (by any operable definition) are somehow noble when committed by oneself.
Typically such thinking confuses acts with motives and simply ascribes "evil" motives to the other and "honorable" motives to onself. It the the problem of double standards, Jay.
By any operable definition of the word "terrorism" the U.S. government likely qualifies as the world's biggest terrorist organization. The most recent historical revelations about the real reasons for deciding to drop the A-bombs was to 'terrorize' the rest of the world, especially the Russians, and let them know that we were 'badddd'.
Jay, this is not some football game, where all that is at stake is Horray, Horray for my team. There are larger, more significant, and more important things at stake here... for all of humanity. You don't really buy into that black/white, good vs. evil abortion of reason, do you?Posted by ljwhit on 2005-09-29 09:20:51

Well, dung appears to be as prolific as bunnies here. The only nugget of worth appears to be ljwhit's assertion that less than 1% does not conflict with .25%.
True. But neither is fact and neither is opinion. The statistics provided are just plain wrong.
If one is to engage in the "pursuit of truth", one must get the facts straight, regardless of whether you are talking about distribution of wealth or timeline causality.
I do not disagree that my opinions on the value of equal outcomes vs equal opportunities are in fact opinions. But your opinions are just that.
Opinions.
The fact is that a survey of 20th century success stories vs failures shows a preponderance of free market economies succeeding and command or mixed command economies failing. My conclusion is that the free market system appears to have very definitive advantages over command style economies. A central fact, a central tenet, of free market economies is that those who succeed are rewarded with the the fruits of their own labor.
Theories are evaluated on how well they explain the facts. It is a pity neither the Energizer Bunny or the witless whit seem to be able to apply their own logic to their own arguments.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-29 09:15:56

Ljwhit is an optimist if expecting a rational Jay, but hey no harm in hoping. Rabbit would bet on a hysteria based attack which will quickly reach a fever and pitch common to that breed known as God Squad. Rabbit thinks this is a God Squad in disguise, it smells very familiar. It is missing toes and a few fingers so far, going to bed but expect Jay will be metaphorically wheel chair bound by tomorrow when Rabbit looks by.
This is a good heartwarming article, feel good stuff for "liberal Bush Haters"
..
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3167
..
cheersPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-29 08:17:33

Jay says:
.
just testing
html formatting
on this blog
......Rabbit thinks that is the smartest thing you have said Jay, improving are we not?
..
Oh it was temporary I can see, look at the next post...Oh dear, this is going to be a long and winding road, and it is so short if we did not have to pick up every piece of rubbish Jay finds along the way, but no the little collector in his little God fearing Heart must pick up poop.(Or is God not your special friend jay?)Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-29 08:05:48

True, Jay Cline, that my statistics on the distribution of wealth in the nation change. But be not so analytically dumbfounded that you cannot figure out that they were not inconsistent or contradictory. One being more general (less than 1%/more than 50%) for the purpose of discussion, and one being more specific (0.25%/50%)and based on census data.
But, of course, if Jay's analysis of the implications of this information leads him to believe in the myth of meritocracy... so be it. If it is his opinion that this state of affairs reflects the vision of our founders, then let it be... his opinion.
So allow me to contribute a bit to the discussion of "opinion" vs. what might be converged on to be objectively factual and actual. To be a bit crude, it has been said that opinions, Jay, are like assholes -- Everybody has got one. Our reasons for choosing our preferences in what we "believe" or in the "positions" we take are determined by more than fact or truth. While I am sure that Jay has sufficient knowledge of the human condition to realize this, I am becoming wary of how much he may not realize about HIS own condition. Nevertheless, Jay, by all means have your opinions.
However, if one is to engage in the "pursuit of truth", one must distinguish that from simply defending/promoting one's "position" or
opinion or belief. Not that one can ever totally divest from the conditioning/emotions that give one juice, but these things must be compared to and held secondary ans subservient to what can be shown to be more objectively valid and factual. Even then, it takes many strokes of valid information and analysis to make a painting of a more complete picture.
My concern with you, Jay, is that it seems your juice seems invested in having your "right" position prevail... even if truth must be betrayed and sacrificed in the process. You dismiss as out of hand (over-the-top) what doesn't fit into your well propagandized little box. I know you consider yourself an informed thinker... but it is beginning to seem that both your information and your thinking is narrowly dedicated. This is not to say it has no worth. Yet, I think much could be gained by an broadened ability to view a thing from a variety of assumed perspectives and by weighing information by standards more objective than whether or not it fits into your little box.Posted by ljwhit on 2005-09-29 08:05:26

Wolf...oops, um Jay why do you keep talking about Greek things? Rabbit saw Alexander last night, Is there some sort of GREEK fixation you are struggling with at the moment?
..
Surely you don't think that saying Plato and Grecian makes you seem cultured or learned. Such a sophisticated thinker like Jay would know that any relevance to this discussion of Ancient or classical Greek philosophy is not sought or likely to lead to anything useful.
Stop posing and stick to learning the simple stuff,
FACTS ....sourced
Opinions...based on facts.==== Debate...^^...
Now any normal person would be expected t6o respond in a rational and sane manner at this point but Rabbit suspects we will now hear the God Squad mobile start up and go into gear.
..
What else is left?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-29 07:55:52

Jay Cline aka Wolf (Bunny guess) says:
..
"and then argues that evidence of Iranian malfeasance in providing the muscle for 9/11 "does not actually make the world of difference to My overral (sic) contention" ,
...
No Drongo Rabbit SUGGESTED it makes no difference, if it was argued you'd know about it. Do you always go about things by nibbling around the dges like a baby?
..
What Rabbit asked was that you did not merely make unsubtantiated claims, that if you claim a FACT then you establish it is one or crawl back into your fanatsy and don't risk puncturing your stupid little Balloon by bringing it out into the big wide world.
....
Which part about FACTS .. versus OPINIONS does Jay Cline not actually understand?. Do we really need to look up Hypocrisy in the dictionary? Were you serious before after all? You need simple words like that defined? Whilst there we shall see if the dictionary can help Jay Cline understand FACTS and OPINIONS. Even if we can see there is a difference, we will be making headway from the look of things.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-29 07:44:58

Jay it is hard to bother with you if you want to play imaginary maey upy games.
...................FACTS Supported by SOURCES.
OPINIONS Based on OPINIONS, none of your faith based garbage, you just lost all your toes and you have yet to raise a single fact worthy of the name, just half coherant opinions and not even particularly relevant.
If you are having trouble comprehending the very basic but well prented argument so far, how are you going to cope whe we get down to "Important Facts" not just this small stuff, which won't even make or break anything.
...
Now stop dicking about and Rabbit will pretend you did not also just lose a few fingers with your feeble attempt at insulting a Rabbit who is more reasoned than you at your best when Rabbit is talking in his sleep.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-29 07:36:46

Forgive me for a moment as I weed through toxic dung pellets as I search for Vorpal Bunny nuggets firm enough to respond to.
When VB states,
Iranians who have not engaged in violence or even threatened it against the USA.
and then argues that evidence of Iranian malfeasance in providing the muscle for 9/11 "does not actually make the world of difference to My overral (sic) contention" ,
I can then only conclude that VB a) has lost grip with reality, b) is a fool and really doesn't understand, or c) is the criminal mastermind behind all of VB and ljwhit's conspiracy theories and is engaging in a massive misinformation campaign.
Given the otherworldliness of VB's logic, my bets are on c) and that VB is actually the evil hamster-like genius Dr. Jacques von Hamsterviel.
A similar argument can be made for VB's continuing convoluted Libyan causality, even with his acknowledgement of having the facts grossly wrong.
VB's contention that "seven (alleged 9/11 terrorists) are alive and well, and were not involved in any suicide acts " reminds me of Mr. K's comment on the real identity and location of Elvis.
I really love that scene with Tommy Lee Jones is hanging upside-down, rocking to the King...
VB then argues that those who attacked us on 9/11 did so because they hate us.
No! Really? So, if I hate someone, like my neighbor who I know is chopping my shrub down every couple years (who else could it be?), that is justification for murder? Oh, I am sorry. I forgot that the 9/11 attackers were American-hating Islamic Fundamentalists has yet to be proven. So, why are we wasting our time providing Grecian Apologies for their criminal non-activities?
I hate American-hating Islamic Fundamentalists who have committed non-murder, so that should be all the rationality we need to strike back. Oh, wait. I already made that point.
VB argues,
" Back to 911, ...The evidence so far points to the financial backing for 911, as having come from Saudi sources, with Bush family and Bin Ladins very closely allied finacially (sic - again)."
But, what was that money used for? According to the ever-lovin' VB, it was not for American-hating Islamic Fundamentalists to kill 3000 people, so even if Bush is directly responsible for financing Bin Laden, no crime was committed. In fact, if Bush is directly responsible for the financial backing of Bin Laden, and Osama used that money to build Islamic schools and hospitals, then Bush and the American people are the Great Saviors of the Islamic people.
No?
The rest of VB's logic rests on this notion of Bush financing Bin Laden and 9/11, but Bin Laden is not responsible for 9/11, so we must make the facts fit the theory and conclude Bush is the best thing to happen to the Middle East since The Prophet.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-29 07:17:31

just testing
html formatting
on this blogPosted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-29 07:15:22

That was a long set of posts, and Rabbit must not for the first time apologise for being 'hoggy' of space. When Rabbit hops he needs room , but economical hops are not always small ones.
..
One thing is for sure Jay, for you to hop back and reply that Rabbit is weird or stupid or a Lier or any other odd fancy you may entertain, would be the height of foolishness, for any of the above Rabbit will sheer your toes off at the stump in one bite...
..You'd better not try and change the subject for that would also be a loss. Rabbit has put his contentions clearly and related facts to them. The overral contention, stands to be tested, piecemeal for now but sticking to Facts, we shall consider the worth of any opinion we may wish to emphasise along the way, by comparing it to facts.............^^............Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-29 04:29:03

Still on the economics, but it gives a clear indication of certain very large holes in the official THEORY.
..
There was a huge amount of insider trading which was indulged by certain US and Israeli interests which give a very clear picture of massive foreknowledge of 911 by "Certain Parties".
..
.......http://prisonplanet.com/profits_of_death_insider_trading_and_9_11.html
..
... http://prisonplanet.com/profits_of_death_part_2_trading_with_the_enemy.html
..
...http://prisonplanet.com/profits_of_death_part_3.html
..
....http://prisonplanet.com/suppresed_details_insider_trading_cia.html
..
...The point of this is not so much to say who did what, it is to disprove that it was the sort of secret operation, so well concealed that nobody had any clue until the planes hit...This is relevant because it is the Official Theory and here it just sucks. Lots of people knew it was going to happen, not just Major government and Business interests.
..
....http://prisonplanet.com/weve_hit_the_targets.html
..
..http://prisonplanet.com/weve_hit_the_targets.html
..
...http://www.prisonplanet.com/prior_knowledge_of_sept_11_not_just_urban_legend.htm
..
..If the US government was aware of and even as it will be shown maybe contributors to the scenario of 911, your whole case of 911 justifying an attack on Iraq, and even Afghanistan is dead in the water, you do realise don't you, Jay, ...just checking....
..
We are only just warming up Jay and Rabbit has not even begun to get into his own area of expertise, explosives and using them to do things. we have not yet begun to look at the actual collapes, the clear evidence of cutter charges going off as the "Three" buildings came down in a way that has never been seen before, except many times in building demolitions of course. ..
..
Just a foretaste, Jay but do you know why very competant demolitions people would spend weeks preparing a skyscraper with explosive cutter charges in order to bring a building down in a perfect stack of rubble, evenly and safely?.
...If were as easy as flying a plane into the thing, and it would all happen like magic, why do you think we bother? Heh it must work dude, two quite large skyscrapers fell to Earth at the very speed of gravity, in the most perfect controlled demolition this Rabbit has ever seen, heard about even. It was classic, and the puffs of debris which preceded the point of collapse by about thirty floors all the way down, corresponded to the distance in time the cutters would have been set to pop.
..
There is a Janitor, the last person to leave WTC 1 before it came down, who is a witness to the fact that there was an explosion in the basement "BEFORE" the plane hit. He has another 27 witnesses who verify his story, including one person who was injured in the first blast and was subsequently saved by the Janitor.
..
Don't freak Jay these are contentions which Rabbit will be presenting as Facts and backing up with LOTS of sources. For now let them start as a warning.
...There is more, much more and it will be backed up, what you have been given so far is but a small warm-up exercise.
..
Remember FACTS
Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-29 02:34:37

.JAY asks:
------"Is it then not also true that the 9/11 attacks themselves justify, or at least, legitimize by example, everything America has done in the name of the War on Terrorism?
---
....Hardly, 3000 people killed by an extremist group (Maybe) justifies waging war on two nations at least one of which never could have been in any way involved. The war includes the use of banned Weapons of Mass Destruction (Depleted Uranium, Dirty Bombs, Son), it is being waged in contravention of all the Geneva conventions and it has netted a total of about 150,000 of Innocent victims. Unless of course you are saying that no Muslim is Innocent.
...
Rabbit knows you mean that, but he doubts you are ready to say any such filth just yet.
....
Now Jay how is that for answering your imagined Rhetoric question?
....
..
Back to 911, ...The evidence so far points to the financial backing for 911, as having come from Saudi sources, with Bush family and Bin Ladins very closely allied finacially.
... http://www.prisonplanet.com/saudis_paid_bin_laden_200m.html
...
...http://www.prisonplanet.com/new_revelations_on_911.htm
..
...http://prisonplanet.com/bush_senior_in_business_with_bin_laden.html
...
...http://www.prisonplanet.com/the_bush_bin_laden_money_connection.htm
..
...Rabbit reminds the likely forgetful Jay to check any sources before you start spouting about unrealiable sources. For any one you question Rabbit will find Three to replace it. So make sure you don't just go all from Prison Planet, not reliable, for if you are literate enough to have gotten this far you are capable of verifying that there is nothing at all from Prison Planet among these, they are merely a collection point for the sources Rabbit is using, and they are all good.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-29 02:00:00

Just noticed that all those words you posted on this page add up to zilch, we are examining the first and most crucial "FACT" Jay. The assumption by you and others that Muslim Fundamnetalists were solely responsible for 911.
...Once we have established the best theory to explain "WHO" was responsible for 911, we will examine the question of whether or not this event or if you wish any other justifies what is being done to the Mostly Muslim countries in the Middle East.
..
First the WHO, Jay because unlike some, Rabbbit likes to establish opinions of his own, based on "real Facts" not some unsubstantiated and wholly illogical claims.
...
Your opinions are downloaded when you plug into the controlled media program, and then you just seek re-inforcement for these things, unless you are one of those who then prays for guidance, which is a whole other beastie. Last but not least is someone with an agenda but Rabbit would not accuse Jay of being this, yet.
.
Jay has attempted to sound logical here so Rabbit shall just deal with this drivel.
..
.
"Let us define hypocrisy, then."
........... Actually Jay we don't really need to define Hypocricy, it can be looked up in the dictionary, please don't Rabbit print it.
As for the examples of American Hypocrisy, far from complete but a good start, they are all good examples.
.....They do not mostly relate to why some Middle Eastern countries hate America, and not even the most insane fundamentalist would give most of your exmples a second thought. You should know this Jay, you sound really silly otherwise, their are very specific instances of RECENT US interference with the countries in question which are much more immediate and real grievances. The people who hate America are not philosophising to themselves about why they hate America. It is stunningly SDurreal to suit at this distance and watch so many Americans actually discussing among themselves why and struggling to come to grips with the idea that somebody hates them.
How can anybody be so stupid. Let Rabbit say it again, "The people who hate America are not philosophising to themselves about why they hate America, they have it all down in black and white, they are clear over their grievances and what they want. Most are saying it with words and angry demonstrations, a minority are taking this anger to action. No Middle Eastern country has ever attacked America and any evidence which exists to show any other governments have supported Terrorist interests against the USA, generally refers to the countries the USA counts as it's most staunch allies. Pakistan, Saudi Arabi, Kuwait and ISRAEL.
.............These are not opinions Jay, they are facts, and they are the sort of facts which help Rabbit form his opinions......Would you like to question any of them, I will source if you will.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-29 01:59:23

Jay says:
...
"Question: If we attacked Libya because they wouldnPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-29 01:15:24

Jay you are going to have to try and understand the difference between Facts and Opinions. Rabbit is content to verify facts as presented and we can then apply those verifiable facts to our opinions which are the only things which are able to be changed. Once you realise the difference you will be expected to refrain from substituting one for the other, either when making your points or when questioning another's. If you wish to state something like the following as a fact then please be so good as to give a source.
..
.."evidence that Iran provided the muscle men for the four hijacked planes is mere conspiracy theory as well, supplied by an senior offical Iranian defector"
.. It does not actually make the world of difference to My overral contention Jay but you will have to do better than that.
.........
You are well advised not to call Rabbit names, for none you can coin will come close to striking Rabbit. Rabbit is to all intents and purposes impervious to any form of cave-man style effort you are likely to be able to produce. The biggest problem you face is that Rabbit is an Intelligent, Open minded, experienced and well travelled Rabbit. Rabbit is well respected by many on the Internet and has amassed some credibility as being able to see mistakes, change his mind on the basis of new evidence and even apologise when the situation calls for it...
..If Jay is foolish enough to try and get fancy with Rabbit he will be gradually and painfully turned inside out for the enjoyment of all and all the personality flaws which would have brought Jay into such an unnecessary conflict will be laid bare in such a way that Rabbits humble observations about you will sear your soul like hot water. ..
Rabbit is not nasty but has Zero tolerance for Shills and TRolls and Dittoheads who feel the need to push the wheel-less cart of a corrupt and thoroughly discredited JUNTA.
..Rabbit does not call petty names Jay, but that is all you have at your disposal, find a chink in the Main contention, don't waste your time trying to pen some elegant dribble which when put to the test contains nothing of substance...
...............
It would not seem wise for you to talk about many words saying nothing. All this is said once, and it is you that has made it relevant.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-29 01:13:01

ljwhit,
---
Ok, fair is fair.
---
Let us define hypocrisy, then. For the sake of the argument, let us say Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Latin American death squads, Philippine massacres are all concrete evidence of American evil. Let us also add Dresden, Wounded Knee, Lincoln's abolishment of habeas corpus and Adam's Sedition Acts.
---
Let us also assume that they all justify, or at least, legitimize by example, the 9/11 attacks.
---
Is it then not also true that the 9/11 attacks themselves justify, or at least, legitimize by example, everything America has done in the name of the War on Terrorism?
---
Please do not follow your colleague's example and not answer your own questions.
---
Please, what is hypocrisy?Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-28 22:47:45

The Great Beast writes:
"The ability to quote Plato does not make one right. Remember, Plato also thought that societies should be ruled by philosopher-kings who had the right of sovereignty by virtue of being smarter than the rest of us."
Goddamn right. If you should meet Buddha along the road... kill him!
Karma Chameleons:
http://bodyandsoul.typepad.com/blog/2004/08/karma.html
And now... Van Morrison: "Rough God"
"Why must we believe that God is sadistic, brutal yadda yadda yadda? What evidence is there that God slaughters?"
Hey, what evidence is there that a God exists, at all?
"A test of what is real is that it is hard and rough." -- Simone Weil
"To believe in God is not a decision we can make. All we can do is decide not to give our love to false gods."
"It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God."
http://rivertext.com/weil3.html
"[Rabbit] is no longer sitting in the cave, watching the shadows cast unto the wall: he has gotten away and stepped out into the light."
http://rivertext.com/weil4a.html
[The man who has left the cave annoys the great beast. Stendhal: "All good reasoning causes offense."]
RABBIT: "...the WTCs and Pentagon, IS a CONSPIRACY THEORY." "The question to be answered is "WHICH" conspiracy theory is best supported by the facts."
Uncovering the truth of 911 is the single most important story of our time. Lets hope we know it before the whole shithouse goes up in flames -- dead rabbits tell no tales.Posted by Tim Christopher on 2005-09-28 22:33:14

Without 9/11, that'd be great.
---
But it did. Blaming Bush, Inc is just sour grapes.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-28 22:22:15

Question: If we attacked Libya because they wouldn't turn over suspects, how is it that the retalitory attack in 1986 happened before the 1989 Lockerbie crime?
But, of course, you are right when you say,
"The official story that nineteen Arab men of fundamentalist Muslim persuasion hijacked four airliners and flew them into the WTCs and Pentagon, is a CONSPIRACY THEORY."
And the evidence that Iran provided the muscle men for the four hijacked planes is mere conspiracy theory as well, supplied by an senior offical Iranian defector.
Well, that can't be true. Defectors are never reliable.
Rabbit talks a lot but says nothing. Anybody got a good hasenpfeffer recipe?
ljwhit's distribution of wealth statistis keep changing; not to mention flat out wrong.
Actually, the top 1% of the population has 1/3 the wealth. And the top 20% has 80%.
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=2050
But, suffice to say, some got more and some got less. Some work harder, some work less. Some are smarter, some are not.
I stand by my stated convictions. The failure of anything resembling socialism in the last century indicates quite clearly to me (dumbfounded or not) that only those societies that allow for and respect private property are the ones that are better for everyone. I do not believe in equal outcomes because I am arrogant enough to believe that I can do better for myself, as long as Big Brother don't come knocking and level my hard earned wages with someone barely working.
I do hope someone comes to rabbits rescue. He is just a bit too rabid for my tastes.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-28 22:19:44

By the way Jay all your claims about Iran are full of holes. You are clearly VERY misinformed about recent history in the Middle East except the TV news. Whilst we will get back to destroying your claptrap, shackled together bucket of rusty bolts of an argument, Rabbit would like to just remove the wheels from your cart, right here from the start.
....................
911-----The So called "bloody nose" given the USA, and by some reckoning the Western world.
.....Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-28 20:27:25

Griffin on 911, paraphrased:
..
The official story that nineteen Arab men of fundamentalist Muslim persuasion hijacked four airliners and flew them into the WTCs and Pentagon, is a CONSPIRACY THEORY.
..............
The question to be answered is "WHICH" conspiracy theory is best supported by the facts.
....
Since some FACTS are on the table, if we are to continue discussing rationally we had best see where these FACTS take us, Jay and any others who are getting ready to weigh in here.
..
Rabbit gives you all fair warning if you start calling theories or opinions, FACTS, in this thread, Rabbit will bite your limbs off one by one until you are left looking like a large Witchety Grub wriggling on the floor, in your own gore...
......
There are pleanty on this site who can contribute to this and Rabbit hopes they will help by doing so, but let us keep to defining facts so we are all given equal chances to form logical opinions.......
...This does kind of exclude Dittoheads, but that does not mean they will realise it....We can but hope..
...
It is not off topic, it is crucial, because whenever the going gets tough the wimps call 911.
...
Rabbit opinion is that 911 should be a day of celebration for followers of Bush because in a grim way it is the only thing rabbit thinks he ever did right. Maybe as usual by not touching any of the buttons as he was told.
..
Without 911 they would have no case even in their own poor little heads, to kill so many people.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-28 18:59:20

Jay Cline, who has a familiar posting style BTW, is riding a long train of generalisations and working out from wholly unnacepatble presumptions to have come this far down the thread and to have still said, nothing substantial.
.......Don't start petty small attacks of Rabbit before you have even addressed what were resoned remarks, one thing at a time Jay or else you will end up doing what Dittoheads do so well and that is start a dialogue and continue one between yourself and an imaginary ebing in your head.
You have no nead to assume, rabbit, he makes his points in an orderly and straight forward fashion and has anticipated most of you spiel already. You have fallen into a trap of your own making already adn are not debationg a actual contention as much as nit-picking at the periphery of the main points.
............
Common fare for many but something you will end up choking on if you expect to share a meal with Rabbit.
.......
Thanks for the Pat Ljwhit, Rabbit doesn't ask for it but always warms his heart when others see he is not just a stupid Rabbit getting under peoples feet. Ljwhit is clearly seeing and has dealt with many of Jay's contentions, Rabbit will have to work through them all a bit, in order to see if he needs add much.
....
It actually does not make an overarching difference about the attacks on Libya, when or why. We have yet to establish the details to all satisfaction here, and if it were critical we can certainly do so. Does the eventual turn out from Lockerbie, ie; False charges and deliberate planting of evidence have any bearing on how we see our relationship with Libya then, Jay. Is it OK we set them up to prove they are terrorists, because we just know that they are?
.....
Speaking from actual knowledge Jay, Libya is one of the most laid back, friendly and pleasant places to visit. Lovely easy going people, a huge stupid bureacracy which is bent whatever way necessary to get things done at a people level. The crime rate is apparently low, especially crimes against people. )Quite a secular state in fact, religious fanaticism is not visible.
......
Of course you are horrified and will probably call Rabbit everything from a terrorist to an idiot, but you will be wrong on all fronts by then and will be in danger of dissapearing up your own backside before we get to anything important.
....
Let us instead deal with the much more critical issue of 911, because you Jay as well as all the more or less informed of your frightened and panicky bunch of sheeple are convinced that that was your great justification for making war onwhat is coming to look more and more like the rest of the world.......Don't start blathering already, sit back and shut up and listen to people who are neither confused, frightened (except of you) or unreasonable. We will find facts which support our contention and which make a steaming heap of poo out of your present "Beliefs". That is all you have Jay and it will be shown to be so. You lack logic as well and probably all open mindedness which probably means you will make a complete ass of yourself from here on in.
....
That is OK too because your failure will stand as a lesson to others more capable of thinking for themselves and nothing is lost.
...
Trust a nice Rabbit who does not wish to cause you grief but who is more than capable of doing so if you insist. Don't be in to much of a hurry until Rabbit says it is your turn, you have already crashed a bit before takeoff so cool your jets while Rabbit gets the time in bits and pieces to sort this out. Have to make Kayaks and talk to people about Kayaks in between, Rabbit you see is very real, he has a little Plastics Factory and is eating a warm Choc chip muffin with his morning Coffee.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-28 18:10:44

Clearly dumbfounded seems to be a natural state for Jay Cline. Sooo... 0.25% of the population having half the wealth in the country is the simple result of merit and virtue, aye? You're a very complex thinker, Jay. Nothing amiss there. It is just that the majority of our people lack any substantial merit, ability, character, or virtue.
Hitler started at the bottom too. He was a self-made man... soo full of merit.
Jay Cline says: Leading the country into a fight against an evil that actively target civilians and commits mass murder is not tantamount to fear-mongering.
And who, Jay, is leading this fight against such evil? You seem to think you assumptions on the basics are absolute and not relative.
Jay conveniently overlooks such things as the not-really-necessary little A-bombs dropped on Japanese cities, the U.S. sponsored death-squads in Latin America, the massacres used to prevent self-determination in the Philiphines, and the yet to be fully investigated 9-11 attacks which were used as a springboard for the "shock and awe" devastation of a highly populated Bhagdad, in a country that did us no harm. So many dead women and children.
Perhaps this is tantamount to hyprocrisy.
Hey, Jay, the definition of "good" is not "something done by the U.S. government."
'And the definition of "evil" is not "opposing an U.S. imposed agenda."
Let's try using a single universal, operable definition for terms like "evil" because I'm not really that comfortable with the dishonesty of double and triple standards.Posted by ljwhit on 2005-09-28 15:50:18

And if such evidence exists, then we must, by Moyers' own logic, paint the Iranian mullahs with the same brush that he would paint the American religious right.
---
After all, they share the same Father Abraham.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-28 14:45:45

Moyers reports,
"We know we can go through the Bible and construct a God more pleasing to the better angels of our nature. We also know that the Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-28 14:43:41

God, I just can't let this alone. The more I read of ljwhit, the more I am left dumbfounded.
---
Clearly on of the most questionable elections was the election of 1800, when Jefferson and the aforementioned Burr tied in the electoral college. It had to be decided in the House of Representatives.
---
Per explicit clauses in the US Constitution.
---
Just like the elections of 2000 and 2004.
---
Don't need no stinkin' conspiracy theory to understand that...Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-28 14:01:15

One additional note:

"You are aware, are you not, that less than 1% of our population owns more than 50% of the wealth in our nation. Ponder for a while the implications of that. That, to my mind, is not exactly the kind of society that our founders had in mind."

umm, you mean the kind of country where free men can aspire to be something? where free men can keep the fruits of their labors?

Did you know that nearly all of the really big tycoons in American history, started out with practically nothing?

Yeah, I really do believe that is what was intended...

Do your homework.

Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-28 13:50:59

Response to all three DOTs from ljwhit.
Yea, who doesn't know that? You don't need a top-secret crypto clearance to "ferret" that out.
Typical conspiracy nuts believe they know everything and everyone else is just dumb, blind and stupid. I believe the medical terminology is 'delusions of grandeur'.
Did you know General of the Potomac Army George McClellan, affectionately known as "Little Mac" or unaffectionately as "Little Napoleon", advocated a dictatorship (ie military coup) to rescue us from Lincoln's simple-mindedness? And did you know that he was the Democratic presidential candidate running against Lincoln in 1864?
Did you know that Vice President of the United States Aaron Burr, the man who killed Alexander Hamilton in a dual during Jefferson's presidency, was approached by the British to start a new "republic" out West? With British military support?
Did you know that Generalissmo Douglas MacArthur attempted to force President Truman's hand with regards to using nukes in Korea?
Did you know that General Arnold Benedict ... well, you get my point.
What's your point? I mean, short of invoking Illuminati conspiracies, that is.
My point, which you never even touched, is that
leading the country into a fight against an evil that actively target civilians and commits mass murder is not tantamount to fear-mongering.
(Mis)quoting the sign on the gates to Auschwitz, "Arbeit macht frei", doesn't give you much credibility, either.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-28 13:33:17

To Jay Cline continued:
As for the elite: You are aware, are you not, that less than 1% of our population owns more than 50% of the wealth in our nation. Ponder for a while the implications of that. That, to my mind, is not exactly the kind of society
that our founders had in mind.
Speaking of conspiracy theories: Let me give you a couple of dots to connect.
Dot 1: Are you aware that in the early 1930s that the very popular Marine General Smedley Butler reported to congress that he had been approached to lead a military coup against FDR. The coup was backed by some of the nation's wealthiest and most powerful business interests, who wanted to establish a Mussolini-like fascist government to replace our democracy. There was a congressional investigation which seems to have validated the possibility of such a plan. However, the whole thing was swept under the rug somewhat by insecure politicians and a not very free press. No one was ever held accountable. For a deeper look at U.S. history as it is NOT taught in our schools you could read The Plot to Seize the White House by John Spivak, one of the better researched accounts of the plot.
Dot 2: Are you aware that the term "military-industrial complex" was not created by some 60s hippie? The term was coined by President Dwight D. Eisenhower when he tried to warn the American public, during his farewell speech to them, that our government was insideously being taken over by military-industrial interests who were driven more by greed and concern for the nation. Read the speech, research the concept.
Dot 3: The Project for the New American Century --- The New World Order. This neo-con plan for the American Empire which calls for the U.S. to take control of the middle-eastern oil fields. Members of the Project include Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc. These plans were presented for consideration to Bush I, but he thought that the American people would not go along with such extreme measures when they lacked justification. In the neo-cons own language, some type of "new Pearl Harbor" would then be needed to bring the American people on board. How fortunate for them that 9-11 provided that new Pearl Harbor event to justify implementing this hidden agenda, which had been in waiting in the wings for a decade.
Do you homework.
I was in the Air Force Security Service, the USAF branch of the NSA, in the mid 60s. I had a top-secret, crypto clearance, and was involved in electronic/communications espionage. I spent 2 years in the northern snow mountains of Honshu, Japan and a full year in the Northwest Tribal Territories of Pakistan, where Bin Laden is now. One thing I came to understand from this and other experiences is this: Things are seldom what they seem. Most agendas are hidden and fed to the public as something else... something admirable. Truth is that there is are ongoing agendas in both domestic and foreign policy that have nothing to do with the commom good or our national interests, but instead are devised to transfer large amounts of public capital into private corporate pockets. This is not the society that our founder's intended.
'And any close, thorough, fact-based analysis of our last two presidential elections ought to leave some bit of fishy smell in your nostrils. Who are we to be trying to establish "democracy" around the world, when the will of "the people" is being undermined and discouraged here at home? These last elections are two of the most questionable in our nations history.
Obviously, I have too much time on my hands, Jay Cline. But it is good that we deliberate and respectfully exchange perspectives. This is what our founders intended. No one account has the total picture, but a collaborative pursuit of honest, objective truth will help to get us closer to it. The truth will set us free: and nazi-like, emotionally-conditioned, corporate-sponsored, faith-based propaganda will enslave us.Posted by ljwhit on 2005-09-28 12:59:21

Bill Moyers says,
---
"Having lost faith in all else, zealots have nothing left but a holy cause to please a warrior God. They win if we become holy warriors, too; if we kill the innocent as they do; strike first at those who had not struck us; allow our leaders to use the fear of terrorism to make us afraid of the truth; cease to think and reason together, allowing others to tell whatPosted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-28 10:13:20

The ability to quote Plato does not make one right. Remember, Plato also thought that societies should be ruled by philosopher-kings who had the right of sovereignty by virute of being smarter than the rest of us.
To say one has the ability to think, that one seeks objective truth, and then back it up with comments that are over-the-top conspiracy theories about "unelected leaders" and that "straospheric elite...steer(ing) the frightened herd towards the cliff", is about as disingenuous and counterproductive to intelligent discourse as you can get.
It is no different than saying God exists because without a God, there would be no intelligent design.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-28 10:06:55

I don't know if GhostRabbit is a fantasy persona or real. What is evident though is that Rabbit is able to think. He is clearly well-informed and researches for a more objective truth. He is not some ring-the-bell-the-dog-salivates, knee-jerk, programmed-by-corporate-propaganda type. He is outside the matrix, and sees what the real deal is... more or less. He is no longer sitting in the cave, watching the shadows cast unto the wall: he has gotten away and stepped out into the light.
He seems to understand what most are afraid to even consider, and what most are in fact dedicated to being in a state of denial about... in protection of their ego-centered self images and their immature comfort zones. Rabbit is not so easily controlled by the stupor of fear and insecurity.
Rabbit is right... and it bears repeating, that the "events" that are used by ruthless Machiavellian types to steer "the bewildered herd" are, when closely studied, bogus and not at all objectively consistent to the "official versions" of what occurred. There are important unanswered questions and valid reasons to be suspicious that the truth has been hidden and we are deceived.
'And he is quite sensible to reflect that even if these events were actually legit, as shaped for us by the corporate media, they are so few and far between that is doesn't make sense that they should be the center of our lives and the singular driving force of our national agenda. Our unelected "leaders" do not serve "the people" but are errand boys for, and members of, the stratospheric elite of the "new world order", who would rule the world. They use these explosions, and their God bullshit, to steer the frightened herd towards the cliffs.Posted by ljwhit on 2005-09-28 08:44:46

"Libya was hit with missiles by the USA for refusing to hand over some of its citizens for trial when they said there was no case for those citizens to answer."
Being stationed in Germany when L.I.B.Y.A. meant Lakenheath Is Bombing Your Arse, I remember that the bombing of Libya (April 1986) was in response to the West Berlin Disco Bombing that killed many American serviceman. This was three years before Lockerbie (December 1989).Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-09-28 08:12:02

Kuya Rabbit has before said that Iranian Nukes do not worry him, and they should not worry anyone.
The only reason Iran has a "More" religiously inclined government that even the Iranians want, is due to the interference and heavy handedness of US interference in their business.
...
Let's not go there, unless you seriously don't know what Rabbit is talking about when he says that the USA, solely responsible for the hatred held for it by not merely religious Iranians but the secular ones as well.
Iran is being backed into a corner and it is only natural they would seek Nuclear weapons for their defence.
Stop slandering the Iranians who have not engaged in violence or even threatened it against the USA.
They have legitimate grievances with the US, a long and well documented list, but are asking nothing than to be left in peace.
Still they are being slandered by the US, they are being asked to jump through even more impossible hoops than any devised for Saddam Hussein and they are actually jumping through those hoops with flying colours. Kuya you are a reasonable person, Rabbit requests you formally to have a closer look at the reasons for your judgements of Iran or indeed any Middle Eastern Nation. You have got some shocks coming thinks I and Rabbit is not being rude saying this. The time is come for the truth, you would want nothing less I am sure.
................
Let us say some Muslim God Squadder started blathering hate, in a similar way to a Robertson, for example. Let us say the Muslim government does not lock that Muslim Cleric in jail for saying such crap, but instead merely distances itself from the clerics words.
Does that justify calling that nation a terrorist nation?
.....If it does then the USA is by definition a Terrorist Nation too.
.............
How about Libya, set up, lied about, slandered and even had missiles shot at them by the US Military, not merely some Fundy nutcases, no sir, they got a few cruise missiles up their backsides and an attempt made to KILL Ghadaffi. Got some of his family for those who care. All Libya did was say we were not involved and nor is there any evidence to say our citizen was involved.
....
....Oh but Libya is a terrorist nation. The Lockerbie Bombing is the evidence for that. Yes it is about the only evidence for such claims....Who knows the rest of the story?
......The whole case has collapsed as a Senior policeman and a CIA agent have independantly come forward to say that the only piece of evidence to link the Libyans, was planted. That is just the death stroke for the case, there is a lot more went wrong actually.
.......
Now Kuya, does it seem right that this was done to Libya? Does it seem possible that Libyans might have a bit of bad feeling about that?
....
The most incredible news is that because they are Muslim nations they have a spiritual aspect to them which allows them to rise above a lot more of the hate and pettiness which is more common to Christian society on the whole.
...Mate if the MUslims were more intrinsically violent we would be living a daily bloodbath.
..............
Mate the fact is that it is mostly Muslims who are living the daily bloodbath, and it is us doing the killing.
...................An observation.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-28 02:22:30

It is not merely because of a few Crazy conspiracy theorists that there is an IMMENSE culture of people who are convinced that many of these things have been deliberately orchestrated by a single entity or two all along, but it is not those who have been very unconvincingly given the blame.
Rabbit does not raise these matters because he feels it is the time to discuss such things, seems off topic to be fair, but it is not as if these "events" were even well established facts. Many of the official stories have been so severely discredited at least that they have no more right to be badied about in serious discussion forums without qualification......
.....
Rabbit assumes that people on this thread are sufficiently informed about recent developments in the 911 case? The whole deck of cards is due to collapse any day, and even a totally compliant media will not be able to hold back the flood waters on this one.
....
911 is of crucial importance, because if it was not what it seemed and we know it was not, then pretty much everything which has gone on since is cast in a "New Light". That last sentence may be one of the greatest understaements of the decade.
....
The artifical WOT and the whole Painted Scenario comes crashing to earth, leaving the most arrogant and hubristic race of people ever envisioned, devastated, as a superpower, extinct. As a world leader, extinct. All in less time that it takes to write a constitution.
................
No knee jerk "Rabbit hates America" rubbish please from anyone. Knows Kuya is not so narrow minded, but who else is there? Rabbit is sad, devastated even to see this once beautiful and respectable Nation of Ideals, become what it is becoming. The worst of it is it is taking Rabbit's homeland down with it, we are joined at the hip, or somewhere on Johnny Howhards Anatomy anywayPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-28 02:00:04

Kuya
Rabbit agrees that firearms for protection from our governments does present a largely self defeating solution.
Violence is rarely the best solution and is never a preferred one for Rabbit. Any sort of violence should be entered into from a position of strength, and a last ditch defense against advancing superior forces is not likey to be one of strength, rather one of desperation.
.................As for Guns, the fact is and always has been that anybody who would use them for the wrong reasons is not going to follow the law anyway.
.....Guns are NOT hard to get hold of if one is determined. If one is already familiar with criminal circles, many are thanks to banning of popular drugs, it is downright easy.............Rabbit is talking about Australia, which has had a level of Gun control you Gun Control Americans can only dream about. Also strengthened substantially of late. ....Rabbit swears that illegal firearms have become eeven more prevalent and easy to acquire since the recent tightening of Gun Laws.
......
Rabbit who is an experienced and very competant shooter, prefers not to own any firearms these days, legal or otherwise.
.............Rabbit is actually quite a good Explosives Chemist and Practitioner of the fine (and it can be fine) art of Blowing things up, not to mention cutting, softening and opening with high energy reactions.
Very highly exothermic reactions are Rabbit's favorite toys......He loves them....He loves Rockets of his own design and manufacture. Rabbit loves Catherine Wheels too.
.....Holes can be dug with such ease, with such toys. .........The point is that when it comes to violence, Rabbit though eminently qualified would do a lot to avoid having to do anything violent. Things can go bang without breaking and killing, Fire and Sparks can be much more than just an effective way to kill. They can be, should only be, for our enjoyment.
............
If the dreadful day comes when people must stand and fight those who would oppress them from within, then the best trick will be to get all the stuff you need of them. That is typically how resistances work. Rabbit has some old friends who were part of the Danish ressitance in their youger years, many interesting stories.
....We have always got the upper hand, w are the majority by a massive degree.
.................
Like Ghandi, we can and should extend a peaceful resistance to tyrrany for as long as there is a chance they will back down.
.....Unlike Ghandi we are facing a far more tyrranical, determined and entrenched foe. It may in the end come down to having to die fighting or live like curs.
....Oklahoma Bombing as well as many other "Events" over the last decade or two, are not good points of comparison anymore. There are too many "VERY" substantial questions about too many VERY critical deatils of such events, even the Federal Murrah Building.
...Rabbit will not accept that there is any proof that there are any particularly significant Terror organisations which exist for any other reason than as "Snowball" type creations. The unseen enemy, the danger against which we must defend ourselves at the cost of all freedom and privacy.
I am quite frankly sick and tired of people using these "Events", so few and far between, as any kind of justification of anything. They are pretty few and far between even if all are legit.
.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-28 01:58:33

Oh yes, and as for people who have an overzealous "afterlife" emphasis getting ahold of warheads and missile systems, well, I think those types are far more likely to us the things precipitously than secular-minded types.
Not that I trust secularists who have nukes either. Still, if one believes that the "real" world is the one to come, on the other side of death, I can't help but suspect that they'd hesitate to nuke an enemy less and be more likely to go for it. The ITT article pondering Iranian nukes drew this same response from me. It's a quandry. The former Soviets were officially atheist; if they had been religious revolutionaries, would they have been more likely or just as likely to cap off a few MIRVs? Hell, maybe it makes little difference, but I do get a visceral sense of suspicion when people speak of "the world to come" as being more real than this world. Plenty of delusion to go around, I suppose, secular or sectarian, but in any case that's my gut response.Posted by Kuya on 2005-09-28 00:29:02

Hello again Rabbit,
As for guns, I favor strict regulation. For everyone, fundis, socialists, liberals, conservatives, hunters, and target shooters. Not total confiscation (except for illegal weapon holders), but careful, enforced regulation.
The 2nd Amendment gets so much heated debate, it's an insoluble issue in America. Personally I don't get too worked up over it. I don't think firearms will protect citizens at large from oppression.
A lot of my in-laws think that favoring gun regulation is a daft position, saying that we might need to fight off oppressive government troops. But as far as I can see, governments everywhere on Earth will simply appropriate whatever resources are necessary to fight armed insurrection. Shooting at cops brings SWAT teams, shooting at soldiers leads to tanks in the streets. The state gets stronger, more ready to deal out violence of their own, when citizens shoot at them. So if (like me) one wants a less invasive and less brutal state, shooting at uniformed officers would be a 180 degree wrong tactic.
Fundis who arm up may fantasize about fighting off federales, but the events surrounding the Branch Davidian group in Waco TX during the Clinton administration was a pretty vivid lesson against their views. Whether the fire was deliberate or accidental, the point is that federal agencies closed in and were not going to play softball with armed resistors. We can debate about the BDs (from what little I read, they sounded rather bizarrely cultic in the worst sense of that word), or the competence and justifiability of the federal response, but anyone can see that their move to arm themselves didn't help them. Probably it led more quickly to the fatal outcome.
Coming back to my original point, I'm less concerned about fringe wacko groups (not to discount fringe wackos like Tim McVeigh, who was executed for destroying the Murrah Federal Building with a truck-sized fertilizer bomb in Oklahoma City), and more worried about a popularly backed, fundamentalist legislative movement that gains power through activist political tactics and strong emotional appeal. For me that's a more likely and more dangerous scenario. For violent fringe weirdos, there are law enforcement agencies. But when government itself has the agenda of pushing a sectarian line, who protects us then?Posted by Kuya on 2005-09-28 00:16:12

GhostRabbit says: Rabbit mentions again the fact that the God Squad is no longer just a funny sideshow.
True that the God Squad is humorless and certainly not humorous. These sick, dishonest Machiavellian bastards are truly dangerous.
True that their god is not my God. But it is not in the nature of my God to shrink in fear from their intimidations. Afterall, he who would save himself, will be lost.
We must offer a more honest God to those whose world is so narrow, stupid, contracted, and mean that all they have to justify their comfort zones is their self-rigtheous faith.
Perhaps the truth can set them free. If there is no power to love... then what is the point?
Take heart, GhostRabbit. No need to behave unwisely, the danger is real, but we must each do what we can to try to save the day.Posted by ljwhit on 2005-09-27 22:45:22

Only the God Squad will not allow you to claim their GOD. If it is not their God you are talking about, and only they are the boss of their GOD, then you are obviously talking about SATAN.
............
Get down on your knees David....
.....You know?.....
Rabbit mentions again the fact that the God Squad is no longer just a funny sideshow. They are the main driving force, or the excuse for the future which is looming like a very bad nightmare, an approaching Cyclone, or Hurricane.
...................
The storm is looking so big it may cross the boundaries of both hemispheres, then what do we call it..............Hurriclone?...........
....
Maybe the word is already coined............... Armageddon feels close.
............
........
Rabbit says again, guys they have got the Buttons and Guns and Boxes of bad things and they are in a corner of own making. Being nice to them is not working. Rabbit has a sister,........ you know the rest.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-27 21:54:15

ljwhit writes : " This God thing of today is mostly self-serving human bullshit. Posted by David in Canada on 2005-09-27 21:11:35

I'd like to remind Whattheheck the his belief that Americans military actions around the world somehow automatically equate to fighting for "liberty" and against "totalitarianism" may be no more that a comfortable, conditioned perspective. He forgets the death squads in Latin America and the overthrown democracies replaced by fascist U.S. puppet regimes. Iraq did not attack America, yet we saw fit to visit upon them our "shock and awe", as we hurried to "secure" their oil fields. Suprise! No weapons of mass destruction... But, it's all good. We needed to free them from that monster (who the U.S. put into power there, but who now refused to obey).
Also... Whattheheck may not know much of Ghandi. But Ghandi was able to say the things that he said because he was a man of great faith and personal courage and integrity. And it was he, himself, who stood up against the evils of his day and challenged the very self-righteous imperialism that Whattheheck inadvertantly seems to be advocating.
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Thoughts like these deserve deep consideration. Let's stop using Christian "religion" (whatever that really is... it certainly has nothing to do with the sensibilities of Christ) as a smokescreen to obscure hidden agendas that ultimately are contrived to help the rich get richer and to marginalize everyone who doesn't support that idea.
This God thing of today is mostly self-serving human bullshit. 'And I truly believe that God would agree with me... and Christ too.Posted by ljwhit on 2005-09-27 20:22:09

Kuya writes : " My hesitancies about initiating violence against fundis are 1) it would be immoral and oppressive, and I donPosted by David in Canada on 2005-09-27 19:55:04

Sorry but short.......
The more chaotic and horrifying the world situation the more the God Squad is going to commit to their course of action. Do you see haow incredibly dangerous a situation this is? Any sane and rational people would start to back away from a course of action which brings more chaos and destruction. These WACKOS are going to become more and more convinced they are right the more things go berserk.
........................
Man that is one hell of a situation, and very , very unstable.
.............
Makes you wonder of the brilliance of the neo-can Junta having alligned them selves with the Fundy Christian cause in the first place. When it comes to trashing the planet, these guys were made to order. They need only be a minority to work well, because they are such an all-fired voacl and absolutist minority.
.................
Once again Rabbit points out that these nut-jobs have got the Button. The BIG red scary BUTTON. Not to mention planes, bombs, ships, lots of soldiers and more buttons......
...............
Seriously, this is not just an academic exercise. Wolf should be into his stride in a few posts then take the opportunity to observe one of them in action..........try and imagine him with a gun in his hand then, tell Rabbit that isn't worrying.
.....
..............Hey WOLF................
Rabbit thinks Jesus Christ was a Hippy like Rabbit and he probably smoked pot. He sure as heck was more comfortable among the crowd at the Pub than in the churches. God and Rabbit are good friends, God and Jesus loves Rabbit, they tell him so in his Rabbit heart.
..
...What says Wolf to this?........Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-27 19:08:07

beyond what rabbit has already said Kuya, we are in agreement on all points of what would be best.
...
To ask you a question Kuya, How long do you think we have to get the "GUN" out of the crazies hands before thye really do some harm?
Do we have enough time for the steady, steady drip of reason to soften the Rockhard shell of Fundamentalist Armour?
...................
It is at this practical consideration that Rabbit runs into the same despair everytime.
......................
Rabbit even has a simple Religion Buster, a supremely simple creed which should nullify the effects of religions, you have seen it
I think.
..............
Do you not feel that we are on the eve of destruction?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-27 18:54:22

James
There is a tremendous amount of truth in the fundy view of what is happening. The question of course becomes which came first the chicken or the egg.
Prophecies have a immense creative power, the more who believe, the more that power grows. This is partly why usually the seer cannot absolutely say what will be.
The fact remains that such 'beliefs" which have been fed by most cultures over hindredsd of years or more, hold quite a bit of momentum.
With the visions summoned by our shared prophesies, coupled with the very real life counterpart, it is understandable to be afraid.
Faith in something magical like a 'Translation' or whatever the big "save" is called, has to be long practised until all reason and logic is gone from one. In this way only is it possible to strive for Armageedon and feel clever doing it.
Then of course such people are completely Rabid and leave us with no choice but to excise them somehow. Rabbit is not advocating violence, he has recently chosen to give evrything he has to try and avoid the otherwise Massive violence which is approaching. The question remains whta are we going to do to bring the God Squad back to earth or at least make them leave the Earth intact. They cannot be reasoned with, they have got the gun, and they are completely predictable qat this point.
.........
It is a very worrying thing if you consider how many "conservative" thinking people are turning a complete 180 degrees in their feelings about US direction and Politics.
The woorying thing is that the core supporters who were never in there due to conviction anyway. Since they chose Bushler for no reason just Faith, and since Faith is all they have, they are unlikely to fall away.
Rabbit foresees an almost solely Fundamentalist support base remaining about the Junta, before long. They will be completely isolated, unreachable and they still are holding the Bloody button.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-27 18:45:55

Wolf there are those of us on this thread who are probably better informed about Christian doctrine and bible than you.
............
Rabbit has previously known you to spit hellfitre and brimstone, you are very ready to do the "Vengeful God" act, remember I've seen it in full flight.
...........
Like many self deluding Christians you talk about a loving God and yet you seem to revel in the blood and guts at every opportunity.
..........
Now that the God Squad Cheerleader is here, we can really begin. ..
Rabbit has been calling you Wolf, what kept you?
.................
Wolf,
Rabbit and probably James too has 4 years of Seminary behind him. What are your qualifications to discuss Christianity?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-27 18:29:31

Hello again Rabbit,
My hesitancies about initiating violence against fundis are 1) it would be immoral and oppressive, and I don't want to become what I hate, and 2) it wouldn't do anything but galvanize counter-violence. Oppression doesn't make people go away, they just go underground and make plans for the future. Also, at least in America, I think too many people would see an assault on fundis as an assault upon religion per se and would rally to their sides, not just evangelical Christians but even lukewarm ones, as well as most of our citizens.
So I see practical and (mostly) moral reasons against attacking them. However, I feel perfectly free to defend myself, my loved ones, my country against any sort of movement toward a Gilead-like revolution, as per Margaret Atwood's novel "A Handmaid's Tale". That's a work of fiction, but when I read it I couldn't say that its scenes and speculations were entirely unrealistic, in a not-too-distant future day.
However, since the more likely (and some would say observable here-and-now) scenario is slow infiltration of our institutions by sectarian priorities, I'll work to contribute to a social and legal culture that stays religiously neutral but that permits worship in whatever form, pushing scientific attitudes to the extent that people are willing to investigate and discover new information about how the world and people work. There are lots of good reasons why people worship, social, cultural, even possibly biological if you like to read some of the interesting material on the subject in anthropology and physiological psychology. I pray myself, though silently, figuring that The Real Thing, if it cares to listen or has the capacity to do so, will catch my drift. Worst case is that it's a psychological game played against the background of the instinctive fear of death. I'll see when I'm dead (or not see anything at all, as the case may be).
I'm not at war with the faithful, even the evangelical, but I just don't want them to control the law. Middle Ages Europe, 1990s Afghanistan, ongoing Saudi Arabia, etc etc, how many examples of excessive connection between priests and rulers can one cite? Anti-freedom, to say the least.Posted by Kuya on 2005-09-27 18:25:23

[quote]This seems to be happening for a reason. A quickening. James as an LDS you know the significance of this.[/quote]
It sounds like that movie, "The Highlander". :-)
Seriously, I was very glad to read the statement that, "Rabbit hates using these words Left and Right to delineate any people. It just does not work". I agree wholeheartedly. But these monikers have been quite effectively used to divide the US. Even if we don't use these labels, those in power will and will use them very effectively. You see it in the media every day (especially in the Fox News and Propaganda Channel). And the pundits and followers of the current push have written the red vs. blue and us vs. them mentality into everything they write or publish. Thus creating an even wider divide.
This is not a typical, "wouldn't it be nice if we didn't use these labels" situation. These labels are a weapon. Just as effective as any gun in silencing an opposing view. If you dissagree with their views that the red states are the "true" America and that the conservative views are the only realistic and moral possibility to consider, then you are automatically given the label, "Liberal". And that label comes with all the negative connotations that it has been warped to contain.
If you haven't yet read the book, "What's the matter with Kansas?", read it. The beginning chapers hits right on this subject in how the perceptions have been altered over the years so that any liberal-style thinking is automatically thought to be elitist, snobbish, tea-drinking, Europe-loving, hedonistic, intellectually superior, wine-tasting, American-hating, Blue-stater, blasphemous lies. In their view it is extremely white or black (or Red and Blue in this case) with no shades of grey allowed. You are either with us or against us.
Well, I have liberal-style thoughts. Lots of them. But none of the descriptions above pertain to me, or at least I'm unaware that they do. In fact a good portion of the descriptions (hedonistic, snobbish, elitist to name a few) aptly describe Bush's "base" instead. But of course no one bothers to see past the surface of the rhetoric to see that.
It was mentioned above in this list that you should read 1984. I agree. (Although I think he was twenty years too early with his title.) While we aren't to the extreme control as is displayed in that book, a good portion of the "mindspeak" and control over thought patterns is very much evident in today's government. Brought to us in the most part via the media.
So how can we avoid the ending in 1984? Because at this point I'm just making myself depressed...Posted by jamesd on 2005-09-27 10:54:07

The writer has an agenda, alright. I have an agenda, you have an agenda -- we all have our agendas.Posted by Tim Christopher on 2005-09-27 08:11:02

"We also know that the Posted by wolf on 2005-09-27 07:10:58

Rabbit would appreciate any help going on the Radioactive wounds of war thread. The most determined yet outed shills are preaching death and evil and resort to complaints (False) to stifle opposition as well as every dirty shilling trick known to man.
What is more it is an issue most any body from any political persuasion around here can agree on thinks Rabbit. Thread is long but it has certain unique features as will be seen..Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-27 05:44:35

That is the surreal part though, that they just cannot be reasoned with. It is a scary thought Kuya but it is hard to avoid concluding that the only way to deal with fundys is, with vuiolence. Not a problem before, but shit, they've got the bomb now dude. They've got the flaming Button, and they are not afraid to use it. Jesus Christ mate these maniacs want to bloody use it.
They scare the bejesus out of Rabbit, I can tell you, and Rabbit is an Gnostic. Please don't mistake Agnostics with Atheists. We are the opposites as it happens. Just in case when you say Atheist you were thinking Rabbit.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-27 05:29:02

By the way, you actively religious types, before you call me a hater or anti-religion, just hold your horses. If you want to push the line of devoted compassion, doing good works in the world, promoting a sense of worshipfulness toward the source of all being and consciousness, I'm there. Teach away. Push the compassion of Jesus, you've got an ally.
But don't expect me to stand still while moves are made to make it law, either statutory or Constitutional. No cops, no courts, no law that compels worship or adherence to sectarian values not my own. Nope. I refuse. And I hope every thinking person disobeys all of that stuff to the limit of their endurance.Posted by Kuya on 2005-09-27 01:43:20

Hello Rabbit,
Way back up-thread, you asked me how to reason with (so to speak) legislatively ambitious fundamentalists, or to phrase it better and more accurately, theocrats.
The only way I can see it happening is to simply forbid sectarian domination over the law, to separate church and state and make it stick. For one thing, reasoning with them doesn't work, because their positions have little to do with reason except to logically pursue the conclusions based on their inviolable a priori assumption, e.g. that the Bible and every literal word in it is a direct transmission from the mind of God to the society of men. Add the Quran, Vedas, Pali Canon, whatever whatever. The fundamentalist stance is that it's impossible for scripture to be interpretable within a particular historical or cultural context, because it supposedly stands outside of historical forces. That means there's no latitude of meaning and understanding, it says what it says and it's the unquestionable, permanent, cosmic truth.
A little study of scriptural history dispels that view without, I believe, diluting the wisdom that can be found in holy writings. But when they're unquestionable, when we're basically forced to accept the dictates of priest-pastor faction who convince politicians that they're incapable of being wrong, it all falls apart, and becomes just another mechanism for oppression. That includes majoritarian oppression (e.g. one of my line-in-the-sand issues, restriction of marriage rights).
There's little of reason in their insistance that simply holding other values than theirs is an attack upon the foundations of the universe. But that's what they think, and if they control the law, that's the paradigm we'll all have to obey.
For God's sake, I'm not even an atheist!
They simply have to be forbidden from foisting their religious culture upon us by way of law. If they choose to exert religious discipline within their own lives, I will fight to make sure they're able; the Soviet tactic of trying to destroy faith with force was a bitter oppression of its own, for example (not to mention, they failed miserably despite their brutality), and anyone who believes in conscience would have to have opposed it. Better yet, subverted it.
The crusader faction in America likes to prattle on about liberty, the religiosity of the Founding Fathers (which is highly debatable), etc. So let them live with an official and cultural separation between church and state. Make sure government is religiously neutral, permitting any worship form or none at all if one is atheist. The intensity of feeling among fundamentalists is not a sufficient reason for them to be able to control the law. It will just be a recipe for sectarian domination, educational erosion, victimization of targeted out-groups who don't have Biblical favor, and control of culture by overly strict, zealous, delusional people who actually believe in fairy-tales like a 6000 year old universe.
And if they want to continue believing that and teaching that to their kids, oh well. It'll give my own kids a competitive edge in the real world.Posted by Kuya on 2005-09-27 01:26:56

Take away the genuine grievances from the long suffering people of the Middle east and if all you have left is a bunch of fanatics full of intolerance and hate, the Muslims will soon shove those swine back in the box. They donPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-27 00:00:13

There is speculative stuff at the end there, but it remains to bring this into RabbitPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-26 23:59:23

Now the usual response to this is to point at some obscure incidents of small groups of people dancing in the streets in Middle Eastern Countries.
These instances were few and far between but were given maximum coverage by MSM. They were neither typical nor were they presented in context. Some of the footage was actually from Israel, where there was not only some dancing in the streets by shall we say Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-26 23:52:54

For WTH, start...
..
The left wing are in a better position to be able to accept the views Rabbit and many others here espouse, that is perhaps because the right has the problem we seem to be facing from within it's own ranks. Permit this humble observation. It is entirely natural that such a problem as we describe would be harder to discern the closer one was to it. Logical? This does not say that WTH is part of the problem except in an indirect sense by supporting their aims. The ideas are not actually left wing either, they are simply an alternative but as a reaction to the extreme right, and due to the ease with which Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-26 23:51:59

"I smite, you smite, he smites... we done smote!" -- from the Coen Brothers movie; 'The Ladykiller's'
WTH wrote: "...just because the president is a religious [fundamentalist] is no reason to tar the whole [Republican] party with the same brush. This only serves to further divide and radicalize people."
WTH here writes perfect copy for postcards from the 51st state -- what Kurt Vonnegut refers to as the fifty first state -- the state of denial.
Where were you during the election campaign when the party used the church as a bully pulpit, or during the end days of Terri Shiavo, for crissake?Posted by Tim Christopher on 2005-09-26 21:26:32

.. and in the final analysis, to get back to the origins fo the article, the fundamentalists and extremists, of all stripes, shapes and sizes, have stolen and continue to steal the only thing of value we really and truly can call our own, the ideals we all hold so dear; peace, love, etc, etc .. if that isn't too generalized and rhetorical. Big grin while I write this.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-09-26 21:06:41

Back in a couple of hours David. Want to go into the basics with WTH for Rabbit feels we have found the gate between our two fields.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-26 20:24:27

More teasing ..
GhostRabbit writes :
" You are more Right wing than me, but you are are standing far to the left of that guy over there. "
whattheheck writes :
" This kind of generalization is on a par with the very faction Moyers is criticizing. I consider myself to be an independent Posted by David in Canada on 2005-09-26 20:12:32

Teasing a little here ...
whattheheck writes : "All my fights were of one punch Posted by David in Canada on 2005-09-26 19:54:11

Sorry long....
"a lot MORE reason and ability to discuss and find compromise, amongst those of a more Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-26 19:32:45

If Rabbit ever comes across as arrogant it can maybe be traced back to this attitude of his, which cannot actually define left anfd right as anything more than adverbs.
The fact is that when Rabbit looks at those who are furthest to the left, they are small in number and dwindling, often re-adjusting their vies over life, what is often called left is no more than the abandonment of many old ideas and an opening up to many new possibilities. The process may be left wing, but the result is typically much more balanced, someone like Rabbit for instance.
The Extreme Right is not diminishing. It is becoming more and more isolated and defined. The God Squad are in there well dug in and nothing short of an Apocalypse is going to move them at this point. If you don't believe Rabbit, ask them.
Rabbit will wager a bet that WTH is going to turn around in the next few days and have a look at those with whom he is siding, even if only by default of the same cause. WTH is going to compare this to the spectrum of opinion, the massive variety of souls who much more gently yet firmly are saying no this is not what it seems, look away a moment, re-focus on something you know is real, then look back. The story of the Emperors New Clothes will come to be the most poignant political commentary in an instant, just maybe.
Rabbit has been using the allegory since Katrina, annd can see that it has become an oft repeated comparison for many more too. The parallels are shocking and then if you have not WTH, read, or re-read Orwell's, 1984.
Will come back to the above but this part is worth thinking about WTH. Rabbit is delighted you have turned out to be a shining one and you are. Many find their way out of the labyrinthe by chance. Few have the power to find their way out, it is the most awesome thing I have ever seen actually, and twelve months ago would not have expected to see it happen over years. Suddenly it is a weekly experience. It is both exhilarating and a little frightening.
This seems to be happening for a reason. A quickening. James as an LDS you know the significance of this?.........The Quickening is upon us.........Sorry folks, silly Rabbit again...But maybe?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-26 19:30:18

Actually since this alone could be the Paradigm shifting thing for you WTH, and because Rabbit's coffee is still hot.
............
The information needs to be shared and things re-considered in that light to actually make the full jump, but this idea should give one such as you pause WTH.
......
Consider that here are numerous people with whom you have interacted, on this site and others of a "Left" persuasion. We have all shown ourslevs to be varied and most clearly have a lot of clues and superb reasoning skills.
The fact that we really care, is shown in our very presence. Many ridicule Internet Blogging and Forums such as this, as being doing nothing. They are just not getting it. The internet is a huge community and is very much connected to the community at large via every single terminal. (We are each and every one, seen and invisible...{Hi watchers}...a terminal to the rest of our communities.)
We are the public debate which has never really gone beyond the local meeting house before.
Now among these people WTH you will notice many who are over the top Lefty and you will have noticed plenty who are over the top Right wing. Amongst this latter it should be apparent it is here the God Squad resides. You have seen them, Rabbit may be mistaken, but I'll bet you have noticed a lot less reason and ability to discuss and find compromise, amongst those of a more "Leftist" persuasion.
Now the fact is that Rabbit hates using these words Left and Right to delineate any people.
It just does not work. WTH you are as much a holder of so called Left wing ideas as many of us hold ideas which are basically normally said to be rightist. The thing is only the extremists among us can accurately be charactersised as either. That is logical really. Thus the rest of us, those with more nuanced views, who are able to and desirous even of engaging in a two way communication in order to not only teach but to learn, we are not definable by left or right except in the relative sense. You are more Right wing than me, but you are are standing far to the left of that guy over there.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-26 19:29:46

On the Scottish thing, again (won't swear by this, it is what Rabbit remembers Granny telling him as a weeny one) A french born servant had a small one to Charles who was as far back as we could go. The wife is a descendant of the Danish "Gorm the old". Much celtic and viking blood in Rabbits family. Proud Freedom Barbarians, but strong supporters of village life.
The things we will be examining in detail WTH will be 911 especially in relation to Iraq. We need to examine the differences certain scenarios would have on our opinions in these instances. We need then to look at Christian Fundamentalists, in light of your contentions about Just and right warfare. Especially in respect of how they are critical components of the support for war in the Middle East.
Others may have tackled this last before Rabbit gets back. Just a minor detail, remeber Robertson contributed majorly to Bush re-election and are staunch supporters. It would seem logical to any reasonable person that if such lunatics as Robertson support the same cause as one's self, that should be reason enough to at least look very carefully at one's own cause and what constitutes the facts upon which the opinion is based.
Rabbit has said that The God Squad Fundys are saying the same things as WTH to justify their crazy ideas, just not able to articulate all the details so they substitute faith and "Gods Word" whenever in doubt.
...
Point is.....These are your allies....Doesn't that worry you WTH?.......It would worry Rabbit.
...
Back later..........^^........Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-26 18:49:52

Hi James there is nothing in whatyou say which Rabbit would disgree with.
Self many years as LDS member and have retained great respect for the Church. Rabbit is well aware about LDS Church policy too. Indeed many members consider Rabbits menbtioned family to be over the top.
The thing about it though is that it is one of the Christian faiths which is susceptible to Wing-nutism. Rabbit would never say that all Christianity or all of any doctrine leads to fundamentalism. My point is that the fundamentalists, God Squad, for short, come out from the bowels of religion and as such need to be dealt with by the individual religions.
The alternative is what we have now. An entire people, essentially separated from us by no more than religion, who are being made our enemy in war.
For both of our sides the people who are cheerleading and desirous of this war, are the fundamentalists. These people are the weakest link in any organisation. They are dangerous now because someone has hijacked their faith and is using it to bring about the fundmentalists own worst nightmare. All the way the Fundy's think they are getting closer to re-uniting with their God.
These people are bats, they are blind and totally beyond reason, and they've got guns!
(They actuallyhave the most enormous arsenal of destruction at their fingertips and they "want" to use it.)
Be sure of Rabbit intentions James, he definately does not label all religion as radical.
WTH and Rabbit also on the same page, there are plenty of relions, including Christian denominations which are non-politicised. For this it's hard to look past the Budhists though. Last step for Rabbit beofe accepting Gnosticism was all was Budhism, and they are gentle and good. Still like all religions the majority of its adherants only understand the wider message via symbolism, but whatever it takes.
WTH Rabbit will be posting a reply to you in a few hours. It is very important, but must deliver a boat to Mandurah a couple hours away first.
g-love. is right, but only the masse who haven't already got Opium, or whatever your choice, if you know what Rabbit means.
The effect of allowing any "DRUG" to replace those four Ideals of all life. Alcohol, Cocaine, Weed, Religion even Politics can become opiates. All lead to abandonment of nmatural human principles in an insidious way, and can come to dictate all our life and relationships etc.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-26 18:32:02

There's a basis for the old adage: "religion is the opiate of the masses." Truer words were never spoken!Posted by g-love on 2005-09-26 13:58:55

Rabbit Posted by whattheheck on 2005-09-26 10:39:13

Hi whattheheck
You wrote :
"It is the police, the military, and all individuals willing to put their lives at risk fighting (killing when necessary) not for personal gain, but for freedom, liberty or to protect the weak, who have held societies together for pacifists and dreamers."
Many pacifists have/do put their lives at risk and many have lost their lives for their beliefs. My own pacifism is more practical and pragmatic than an absolute radical principle. I do not think it is morally wrong for someone to "kill when necessary". I do think that refusing to fight and working for peace are the better answer to violence. Violence begets violence.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-09-26 09:51:55

GhostRabbit: I definitely understand where you're coming from. There are wing-nuts in every organization, creed and religion. It sounds as if you are related to a few of them.
But keep in mind that not all Mormons are like that. "Wing-nut-itis" is somewhat rare in my experience although I've definitely met my fair share. I'm a Mormon and, unlike your family, I decidedly agree with Mr. Moyers assessment of how religion is being used to overtake and demean our great nation. And how the once great GOP party has been possessed by the neo-cons and their twisted agendas. It makes me sick sometimes just thinking about it.
But I also agree with whattheheck's point made above that not all religions are politicized and controlling as we are seeing with some of the religious right groups. To label all religion into the "religious right" category casts too great of a shadow over all of the good that is done by all denominations in this country. The good folks at Interfaith Alliance have made this point spot on. Check out the web site here: http://www.interfaithalliance.org
Also, as an aside, I'd like to set the record straight that the LDS church's policy is hands-off and neutral concerning politics. It definitely encourages its members to be politically active as they see fit (although most choose poorly in my view), but the church itself does not ascribe to any political party, view or dialogue and does not tell it's members how to vote.
And that is how I think it should be.Posted by jamesd on 2005-09-26 09:34:33

WTH the thing about fundamentalists and confronting them needs more discussion, Rabbit agrees but needs to extend this to mean all fundamentalists, in this case especially the Christian ones. It is first and foremost our duty to confront our fundamentalists. The Muslims are quite willing and capable of dealing with their fundemenatlists if give a chance. The problem begins when our fundamentalists get control as they have, and obviously it gets worse when their fundy's get the reigns.
What can be seen in the ME as we speak is that the very act of allowing our fundys to call the shots and threaten others is giving their fundy's a fantastic recruiting tool. The fundys who have arisen in ME have typically done so on the back of mis-guided Western interference. If we could all take charge of our own backyards we might soon see that once the fundys of all persuasions are dealt with by their own nearest neigbors, the rest of us will probably be able to get along fine afterwards. Rabbit has said clearly why before, hint the FOUR IDEALS.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-26 07:36:55

Bonny Prince Charles had a bastard son in Ireland if I recall.
Rabbit got into it with the school bullies evrywher. Glasses, non-conformist, bookworm, but saild an sawm lots on weekends. Rabbit kicked their arses at each school, then went back to being the school outcast. Could never give any noitice to all the "Suckholes" who were always so ready to transfer loyalty to the new "Tough Kid".
Never made the grade as a tough kid, just a Bully Basher.
Have noted the book, don't know if it's anything like it but Bryce Courtenay's "Power of one" inspired and Richard Bach's, "Jonathon Livingstone Seagull", "Wings" and "Bridge Across Forever" are the quintessential soul books for modern man.
Goodnite for now.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-26 07:28:21

From Moyers' article:
"Fundamentalist bullies cannot be appeased. they must be confronted."
Bingo!
I maintain the only reason Ghandi could make those statements was due to others who "confronted" evil.
It is the police, the military, and all individuals willing to put their lives at risk fighting (killing when necessary) not for personal gain, but for freedom, liberty or to protect the weak, who have held societies together for pacifists and dreamers. Without them all would be anarchy.
What good is it to "confront" a bully if you are unwilling to fight? My religious experience is somewhat like Rabbit's. My more literal Bible believing father always said, "We are to turn the other cheek." My mother said, "Don't start a fight, but if someone hits you, hit back twice as hard.
All my fights were of one punch Posted by whattheheck on 2005-09-26 06:15:17

The horror was it was so easy to convince them Bush is their messiah.
He says God and Jesus a couple of times and even though he's never even been seen in a church he is their great Christian Leader.
Lets be quite clear about this Wwoods this is a truly incredible , most surreal situation we are witnessing. Does it ver strike you as it does Rabbit, this just cannot be happening? I am going to wake up any day and everything will make sense again? Up will be up, day will be day and left and right will at least occupy opposite sides of the plane.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-26 06:13:42

Kuya
Have read Rabbit post about Mormon family?
This is the sort of people who form the God Squad. They are among the core of the last supporters of "The Junta". These ones are in Westren Autralia too, it is no further away from Rabbit than he must face the same insane radicals in his house too. (Not for a while though after the last round, thinks I)
Rabbit knows them well and there are many examples. They have even less of a coherant argument than the Right wing Dittos and Morons we see around here. These God Squad people are totally irrational, they cannot even articulate anything better than "Get down on your knees", "you need to ask God for forgiveness" "We must have faith" "God will take care of things" Put it all in the hands of Jesus and lets go sing some lame songs.
Kuya, how the F**K do we reason or otherwise deal with these people?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-26 06:06:53

Hi ho,
Q:How did these religious poseurs obtain the moral high ground?
A:They claimed it.
Q:Why do these zealots have as much power as they do?
A:We allow it happen.
Frankly,these bumpkins who sell religion like after-life insurance should never have been able to gain as much power as they have.They have a product to sell and will never quit until everyone is a loyal customer.
Unfortunately,opportunists in a certain party sought to manipulate the religious right to tap into their coffers.Just look at the mess.
Compared to the G.O.P.,Dr Frankenstein was a rank amateur.Posted by wwoods on 2005-09-26 05:53:26

Rabbit is an Aussie Rabbit. Irish Scottish ancestry. The internet is a good medium of exchange and Rabbit is a citizen of any medium he cares to enter.
How can anybody NOT be in the thick of events of the magnitude of that we are witnessing?
The only difference is perception. Rabbit is small, somehow the World does not seem to be so big though. Have lived and travelled a bit and many things and places feel close when they are no longer strange.
From whence cometh the good Liz?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-26 05:01:53

Back to the article, if Moyers generalizes too far by broad-brushing the Reps at large, it's only by a half-step.
When I hear of activist Republicans vociferously denouncing the infiltration of biology classrooms by the Old Testament, when they publically abandon any sponsorship of a marriage-defining amendment to the Constitution, when TV preachers who advocate political assassination are shut down hard instead of their words being called (in a singularly mealy-mouthed fashion) "regrettable", I'll believe that the party isn't possessed by the spirit of aggressive reactionary Christianity.
Moyers has it dead-on when he says we're too polite, to afraid to speak right out about values that denounce sectarian control of the law. When they call us traitors, satanists, degenerates, we should fire it right back that they're medievalists, dogmatists, fearful of the liberty they glibly claim is their agenda.
And more to the point, they should be disobeyed. Whether they finnagle control over the law or not, when it comes to matters of conscience and personal guidance over one's own mind and body, they should directly and without pity be disobeyed and fought off if they try to bully.
See if they can keep me from legally joining my life to the one I love! See if they're able to grab my childrens minds and force them into medieval, knowledge-fearing shapes.
That'll be one fuckin' fight!Posted by Kuya on 2005-09-26 05:01:40

Question: What is a Jebusite?
Is a follower of Jesus W.'s brother. Somebody let me know, OK? Gotta run now, have to bail out my son from jail and take my wife to the airport. She's flying to Paris to do some shopping. Take care and may God bless Corporate Amerika/Saudi Arabia.Posted by jazzfan on 2005-09-26 04:53:37

Are you an Australian Rabbit then, or a New Zealand one.... but you talk also as if you were right in the thick of North American events... I'm not. Thankfully.Posted by Liz on 2005-09-26 04:28:39

Now upon re-reading that gives one heck of a weird image for kittens doesn't it? Rabsnattens? Rakes?
....................................^^..............................Daft Rabbit hops off for something to eat.....Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-26 03:53:14

Yes but Mrs Rabbit is so in name only, the doe is actually a Snake, but a cute Danish one and three healthy Kittens show a good union has been achieved.
Must go home and have dinner, after will be looking by in about an hour, to see if the God Squad has arrived. Is Liz waiting for the God Squad too?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-26 03:49:44

Can see the scene not sure if Rabbit seen Angela's ashes though. Like when I saw "Once we were wariors", Rabbit saw the whole Maori thing and so familiar.
Such ideas are bound to resonate, Rabbit has seen and read much and is only a simple Rabbit so has not made up anything new yet. Just find old things lying around, sometimes they just need a bit of polish or a better setting and something old and even ancient can seem like a new idea.
People dig new ideas. They think if they can get enough ideas then they will be able to get the best. That is the sort of thinking which separates men and women shoppers as a rule. (In OZ) Rabbit thinks maybe the problem is too many ideas. Maybe we can find a simple one we can all agree on. Well most all, can't do anything for the "FANATICS". So we may have to cut our losses as a race.
Lose about 20% of them and so long as it was the 20% who are most determined to join their God, we'd be in heaven ourselves, at least for our alotted timespans on this lump of rock and dust swooping about in the big black space called time.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-26 03:46:30

Oh gosh! You sound like a very nice Rabbit and I hope you and your doe (I always liked the name Hyzenthlay - if I've got it right! out of the Richard Adams masterpiece....)
have a very nice walk and lots of kittens. (this being the correct technical term.)Posted by Liz on 2005-09-26 03:38:55

Hi Liz
Combination Rabbit. Soul is Rabbit Year (Chinese astrology). Inspiration is a Dwarf Black Rex, Rabbit looks most like Christopher Robins Rabbit, bit Grey not so cute as the Rex.
..............Rabbit likes Liz too, someone who stops to smell the roses, Rabbit and Missus Rabbit went for a bike ride around the Swan River this afternoon. Could smell the honeysuckle and other wildflowers along one path at one point, so sweet...........................^^.................Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-26 03:36:02

No slogans! Nobody would die for a country or a flag or an idea, people die in wars thinking they are helping protect those they love. The politicians say they dies for their country. Those who survive may kid themselevs those others died for their country. Bullshit. They died believing they were defending those ideals of RabbitPosted by Liz on 2005-09-26 03:28:27

Rabbit. Isn't he sweet? He's quite grown on me.
Are you a fan of Watership Down... which rabbit are you??Posted by Liz on 2005-09-26 03:16:32

Whattheneck Rabbit knows too there are things worth killing for and worth dyiong for, but you are in my territory if we start them. These things have been defined by Rabbit as Ideals and they are listed as Love (Family), Shelter, Food and a Future for our children.
Every living creature has the same ideals and they are the only things worth killing for or risk being killed for. Yet many people support actions and even perform actions which threaten their own ideals in a very real and even immediate sense. The only way this could happen is if those people had been tricked into believing they were doing something which was for other than it's real purposes.
Christians can be tricked into believing their God wants them to do anything. So can any population that does not recognise its own basic ideals but instead allows Governments and Churches to define and guard their ideals.
First identify those absolute ideals, what will you die for. No slogans! Nobody would die for a country or a flag or an idea, people die in wars thinking they are helping protect those they love. The politicians say they dies for their country. Those who survive may kid themselevs those others died for their country. Bullshit. They died believing they were defending those ideals of Rabbit's or they died dissillusioned realising the truth.
Since nobody can make their own ideals safer by threatening others, who must by definition strike back, no war is ever justified unless it is a defensive war.
Any war which seems inevitable is not. If it seems os then somewhere somebody is lying, because it goes against the nature of life.
Anybody who chooses to keep breathing at birth, who gets ouit of the way because they might get hit by a bus or bomb chose life, so why would you ever believe anyvbody out there worships death? Those few who do soon take themselves out of the equation, the rest think they are chasing their ideals because they are so deluded.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-25 20:49:15

Rabbit is going to say his opinion here and it is given in deference to no-one.
Rabbit comes from a Mormon Family. Mum and Dad, Sister and her family, they are all totally committed to their faith. Rabbit was at one time a member and is an Elder, though ex-communicate. Rabbit lives not far from his Mormon Family. Rabbit knows something about fundamentalist Christians.
They are if anything as insane and irrational and bloodthirsty as the most fundamentalist Muslim or Jew. Despite being Rabbit's mother and Sister they can see nothing past their own long term and complete blindness to all reality. They are always right, they know it and you either do to or you are a "Pitiful" poor lost soul, or an evil blood soaked satanist.
They answer words of love and peace and tolerance with spitting venom and curses and all manner of incredible presumptions. These people are known to and Rabbit loves them. They are living farcical lives, where everything they describe about Satan and Illuminati and all manner of extreme visions is as true only as they are making it. Worst and it is this which chills Rabbit to the soul, they are the closest thing to the wicked and decieved ones who are aligned with THE GREAT WHORE OF BABYLON, as could be imagined. This is their image, their prophesy and they can't see their place in it. Tragic.
The horror for Rabbit who is a contented Agnostic and deeply spiritual, loving person, is that these loved ones are the very thing they are describing as "lost".
God help us all because these crazies believe that they are about to be carried away from the World and all it's troubles and the quicker they set fire to the whole place the quicker they will get their Rapture.
They are totally non-compos mentos (Sorry Latin students). They have completely substituted Beliefs for facts and have practised long and hard at believing in things which have not a shred of evidence to support them.They call this faith.
....For merely questioning how does a Loving God allow them to call for the blood of Muslims and support illegal unjust wars, Rabbit is said to lack faith.
For pointing out that Jesus Christ did not carry a Machine Gun, Rabbit was assured that he should not speak Jesus Christs name, for he is a sinful Rabbit who knows nothing of "The Lord" and Rabbit should instead get down on his knees and pray for help. Hmmm.
When Rabbit tried to point out that George Bush was not a Christian just because he said he was and that his actions had never led one to expect he might even be a decent human at all, Rabbit was subjected to insane gibbering, curses and threats. The sister almsot went into a fit, yelling about murder, baby rapists (this was about victims of Katrina) and evil hateful Muslims who all had to be killed or nobody could ever live in peace, becaue they had no God, they had a false God.
Also Rabbit was told he knew nothing about how much tolerance and Love the sister had for Muslims in general, it was just the Fundamentalists who had turned their faith into a religion of hate.
There was more and strange as it all was the hideous face, foaming mouth and rolling eyes were even more strange. This is Rabbit's little Sister. Rabbit shocked, still is.
That is some but a good sample of it.
Now how the hell does anybody reckon with that?
Trolls and Shills are bad, but oh boy wait till you're up against the God Squad.
There is one sniffing around this site by the way, having lost his usual hunting grounds at ADE, he may pop up and give us a full blown demo if we are lucky..
Rabbit whistles,................................. will he come?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-09-25 20:33:40

Hi whattheheck
You wrote :
"There are things worth dying for and even things worth killing for."
My response would be, if I can quote Ghandi again :
"Nonviolence is the first article of my creed. It is also the last article of my creed"
The thing worth dying for (for me) is : not killing.
When liberty is delivered and enforced by violence hasn't liberty taken the first steps to totalitarianism?
Bill Moyers wrote :
" Bullies-political bullies, economic bullies and religious bullies-cannot be appeased; they have to be opposed with a stubbornness to match their own. "
And he is right. Evil men who would manipulate and exploit people's beliefs into violence and hatred against "the others" should be opposed. But that opposition should not be more violence and hatred.
" An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind " Mahatma Ghandi
or
" Blessed are the peacemakers: for they will be called sons of God " Jesus Christ (Matthew 5:9)
"Posted by David in Canada on 2005-09-25 12:28:02

Hi Dave,
Posted by whattheheck on 2005-09-25 09:09:42

" What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy? " - Mahatma GhandiPosted by David in Canada on 2005-09-24 12:31:40

I object to Moyers' assertion... "The radical religious right has succeeded in taking over one of AmericaPosted by whattheheck on 2005-09-24 11:07:17